12345...1020...


Political correctness – Wikipedia

This article is about political correctness. For other uses of “PC” or “P.C.”, see PC (disambiguation).

The term political correctness (adjectivally: politically correct; commonly abbreviated PC) is used to describe language, policies, or measures that are intended to avoid offense or disadvantage to members of particular groups in society.[1][2][3][4][5] Since the late 1980s, the term has come to refer to avoiding language or behavior that can be seen as excluding, marginalizing, or insulting groups of people considered disadvantaged or discriminated against, especially groups defined by sex or race. In public discourse and the media, it is generally used as a pejorative, implying that these policies are excessive or unwarranted.[6][3][7][8][9][10][11]

While earlier usage of the term referred to the strict adherence to political orthodoxy, the contemporary pejorative usage of the term emerged from conservative criticism of the New Left in the late 20th century. This usage was popularized by a number of articles in The New York Times and other media throughout the 1990s,[12][13][14][15][16][17] and was widely used in the debate about Allan Bloom’s 1987 book The Closing of the American Mind,[7][9][18][19] and gained further currency in response to Roger Kimball’s Tenured Radicals (1990),[7][9][20][21] and conservative author Dinesh D’Souza’s 1991 book Illiberal Education in which he condemned what he saw as liberal efforts to advance self-victimization and multiculturalism through language, affirmative action, and changes to the content of school and university curricula.[7][8][20][22]

Commentators on the political left in the United States contend that conservatives use the concept of political correctness to downplay and divert attention from substantively discriminatory behavior against disadvantaged groups.[20][23][24] They also argue that the political right enforces its own forms of political correctness to suppress criticism of its favored constituencies and ideologies.[25][26][27] In the United States, the term has played a major role in the “culture war” between liberals and conservatives.[28]

The term “politically correct” was used infrequently until the latter part of the 20th century. This earlier use did not communicate the social disapproval usually implied in more recent usage. In 1793, the term “politically correct” appeared in a U.S. Supreme Court judgment of a political lawsuit.[29] The term also had use in other English-speaking countries in the 1800s.[30] William Safire states that the first recorded use of the term in the typical modern sense is by Toni Cade Bambara in the 1970 anthology The Black Woman.[31] The term probably entered modern use in the United Kingdom around 1975.[11][clarification needed]

In the early-to-mid 20th century, the phrase “politically correct” was used to describe strict adherence to a range of ideological orthodoxies. In 1934, The New York Times reported that Nazi Germany was granting reporting permits “only to pure ‘Aryans’ whose opinions are politically correct.”[2]

As Marxist-Leninist movements gained political power, the phrase came to be associated with accusations of dogmatic application of doctrine, in debates between American Communists and American Socialists. This usage referred to the Communist party line which, in the eyes of the Socialists, provided “correct” positions on all political matters. According to American educator Herbert Kohl, writing about debates in New York in the late 1940s and early 1950s,

The term “politically correct” was used disparagingly, to refer to someone whose loyalty to the CP line overrode compassion, and led to bad politics. It was used by Socialists against Communists, and was meant to separate out Socialists who believed in egalitarian moral ideas from dogmatic Communists who would advocate and defend party positions regardless of their moral substance.

In the 1970s, the American New Left began using the term “politically correct”.[32] In the essay The Black Woman: An Anthology (1970), Toni Cade Bambara said that “a man cannot be politically correct and a [male] chauvinist, too.” Thereafter, the term was often used as self-critical satire. Debra L. Shultz said that “throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the New Left, feminists, and progressives… used their term ‘politically correct’ ironically, as a guard against their own orthodoxy in social change efforts.”[7][32][33] PC is used in the comic book Merton of the Movement, by Bobby London, which was followed by the term ideologically sound, in the comic strips of Bart Dickon.[32][34] In her essay “Toward a feminist Revolution” (1992) Ellen Willis said: “In the early eighties, when feminists used the term ‘political correctness’, it was used to refer sarcastically to the anti-pornography movement’s efforts to define a ‘feminist sexuality’.”[35]

Stuart Hall suggests one way in which the original use of the term may have developed into the modern one:

According to one version, political correctness actually began as an in-joke on the left: radical students on American campuses acting out an ironic replay of the Bad Old Days BS (Before the Sixties) when every revolutionary groupuscule had a party line about everything. They would address some glaring examples of sexist or racist behaviour by their fellow students in imitation of the tone of voice of the Red Guards or Cultural Revolution Commissar: “Not very ‘politically correct’, Comrade!”[36]

Allan Bloom’s 1987 book The Closing of the American Mind[18] heralded a debate about “political correctness” in American higher education in the 1980s and 1990s.[7][9][19][37] Professor of English literary and cultural studies at CMU Jeffrey J. Williams wrote that the “assault on … political correctness that simmered through the Reagan years, gained bestsellerdom with Bloom’s Closing of the American Mind.”[38] According to Z.F. Gamson, Bloom’s book “attacked the faculty for ‘political correctness’.”[39] Prof. of Social Work at CSU Tony Platt says the “campaign against ‘political correctness'” was launched by Bloom’s book in 1987.[40]

An October 1990 New York Times article by Richard Bernstein is credited with popularizing the term.[14][16][17][41][42] At this time, the term was mainly being used within academia: “Across the country the term p.c., as it is commonly abbreviated, is being heard more and more in debates over what should be taught at the universities”.[12] Nexis citations in “arcnews/curnews” reveal only seventy total citations in articles to “political correctness” for 1990; but one year later, Nexis records 1,532 citations, with a steady increase to more than 7,000 citations by 1994.[41][43] In May 1991, The New York Times had a follow-up article, according to which the term was increasingly being used in a wider public arena:

What has come to be called “political correctness,” a term that began to gain currency at the start of the academic year last fall, has spread in recent months and has become the focus of an angry national debate, mainly on campuses, but also in the larger arenas of American life.

The previously obscure far-left term became common currency in the lexicon of the conservative social and political challenges against progressive teaching methods and curriculum changes in the secondary schools and universities of the U.S.[8][44][45][46][47][48] Policies, behavior, and speech codes that the speaker or the writer regarded as being the imposition of a liberal orthodoxy, were described and criticized as “politically correct”.[20] In May 1991, at a commencement ceremony for a graduating class of the University of Michigan, then U.S. President George H.W. Bush used the term in his speech: “The notion of political correctness has ignited controversy across the land. And although the movement arises from the laudable desire to sweep away the debris of racism and sexism and hatred, it replaces old prejudice with new ones. It declares certain topics off-limits, certain expression off-limits, even certain gestures off-limits.”[49]

After 1991, its use as a pejorative phrase became widespread amongst conservatives in the US.[8] It became a key term encapsulating conservative concerns about the left in culture and political debate more broadly, as well as in academia. Two articles on the topic in late 1990 in Forbes and Newsweek both used the term “thought police” in their headlines, exemplifying the tone of the new usage, but it was Dinesh D’Souza’s Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus (1991) which “captured the press’s imagination.”[8] Similar critical terminology was used by D’Souza for a range of policies in academia around victimization, supporting multiculturalism through affirmative action, sanctions against anti-minority hate speech, and revising curricula (sometimes referred to as “canon busting”).[8][50][not in citation given] These trends were at least in part a response to multiculturalism and the rise of identity politics, with movements such as feminism, gay rights movements and ethnic minority movements. That response received funding from conservative foundations and think tanks such as the John M. Olin Foundation, which funded several books such as D’Souza’s.[7][20]

Herbert Kohl, in 1992, commented that a number of neoconservatives who promoted the use of the term “politically correct” in the early 1990s were former Communist Party members, and, as a result, familiar with the Marxist use of the phrase. He argued that in doing so, they intended “to insinuate that egalitarian democratic ideas are actually authoritarian, orthodox, and Communist-influenced, when they oppose the right of people to be racist, sexist, and homophobic.”[3]

During the 1990s, conservative and right-wing politicians, think-tanks, and speakers adopted the phrase as a pejorative descriptor of their ideological enemies especially in the context of the Culture Wars about language and the content of public-school curricula. Roger Kimball, in Tenured Radicals, endorsed Frederick Crews’s view that PC is best described as “Left Eclecticism”, a term defined by Kimball as “any of a wide variety of anti-establishment modes of thought from structuralism and poststructuralism, deconstruction, and Lacanian analyst to feminist, homosexual, black, and other patently political forms of criticism.”[21][38]

Liberal commentators have argued that the conservatives and reactionaries who used the term did so in effort to divert political discussion away from the substantive matters of resolving societal discrimination such as racial, social class, gender, and legal inequality against people whom conservatives do not consider part of the social mainstream.[7][23][51] Jan Narveson wrote that “that phrase was born to live between scare-quotes: it suggests that the operative considerations in the area so called are merely political, steamrolling the genuine reasons of principle for which we ought to be acting…”[6] Commenting in 2001, one such British journalist,[52][53] Polly Toynbee, said “the phrase is an empty, right-wing smear, designed only to elevate its user”, and, in 2010, “the phrase ‘political correctness’ was born as a coded cover for all who still want to say Paki, spastic, or queer”.[54] Another British journalist, Will Hutton,[55] wrote in 2001:

Political correctness is one of the brilliant tools that the American Right developed in the mid1980s, as part of its demolition of American liberalism…. What the sharpest thinkers on the American Right saw quickly was that by declaring war on the cultural manifestations of liberalism by levelling the charge of “political correctness” against its exponents they could discredit the whole political project.

Glenn Loury wrote in 1994 that: “to address the subject of “political correctness” when power and authority within the academic community is being contested by parties on either side of that issue, is to invite scrutiny of one’s arguments by would-be “friends” and “enemies.” Combatants from the left and the right will try to assess whether a writer is “for them” or “against them.”[56][check quotation syntax]

Much of the modern debate on the term was sparked by conservative critiques of liberal bias in academia and education,[7] and conservatives have used it as a major line of attack since.[8] University of Pennsylvania professor Alan Charles Kors and lawyer Harvey A. Silverglate connect speech codes in US universities to philosopher Herbert Marcuse. They claim that speech codes create a “climate of repression”, arguing that they are based on “Marcusean logic”. The speech codes, “mandate a redefined notion of “freedom”, based on the belief that the imposition of a moral agenda on a community is justified”, a view which, “requires less emphasis on individual rights and more on assuring “historically oppressed” persons the means of achieving equal rights.”[57] Kors and Silverglate later established the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), which campaigns against infringement of rights of due process, in particular “speech codes”.[58][unreliable source?]

Similarly, a common conservative criticism of higher education in the United States is that the political views of the faculty are much more liberal than the general population, and that this situation contributes to an atmosphere of political correctness.[59] William Deresiewicz argues that political correctness largely functions as a sort of religious dogma on college campuses and while it may have some noble goals, it is largely about power, censoring its opponents to ensure the dogma cannot be questioned, resulting in censorship and self-censorship of those who disagree. This also results in its tenets being applied inconsistently – Deresiewicz argues that while it ostensibly opposes prejudice, its proponents will hurl prejudicial insults against demographics they hold in contempt. Deresiewicz also argues that political correctness is largely the result of for-profit education, as campus faculty and staff are wary of angering students upon whose fees they depend. Deresiewicz also observes that political correctness on campuses largely ignores issues of social class, which he suggests is due to the fact that most of its adherents come from economically privileged backgrounds.[60]

Some conservative commentators in the West argue that “political correctness” and multiculturalism are part of a conspiracy with the ultimate goal of undermining Judeo-Christian values. This theory, which holds that political correctness originates from the critical theory of the Frankfurt School as part of a conspiracy that its proponents call “Cultural Marxism”, is generally known as the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory by academics.[61] The theory originated with Michael Minnicino’s 1992 essay “New Dark Age: Frankfurt School and ‘Political Correctness'”, published in a Lyndon LaRouche movement journal.[62] In 2001, conservative commentator Patrick Buchanan wrote in The Death of the West that “political correctness is cultural Marxism”, and that “its trademark is intolerance”.[63]

In the US, the term has been widely used in books and journals, but in Britain, usage has been confined mainly to the popular press.[64] Many such authors and popular-media figures, particularly on the right, have used the term to criticize what they see as bias in the media.[6][20] William McGowan argues that journalists get stories wrong or ignore stories worthy of coverage, because of what McGowan perceives to be their liberal ideologies and their fear of offending minority groups.[65] Robert Novak, in his essay “Political Correctness Has No Place in the Newsroom”, used the term to blame newspapers for adopting language use policies that he thinks tend to excessively avoid the appearance of bias. He argued that political correctness in language not only destroys meaning but also demeans the people who are meant to be protected.[66] Authors David Sloan and Emily Hoff claim that in the US, journalists shrug off concerns about political correctness in the newsroom, equating the political correctness criticisms with the old “liberal media bias” label.[67]

Political correctness is often satirized, for example in The PC Manifesto (1992) by Saul Jerushalmy and Rens Zbignieuw X,[68] and Politically Correct Bedtime Stories (1994) by James Finn Garner, which presents fairy tales re-written from an exaggerated politically correct perspective. In 1994, the comedy film PCU took a look at political correctness on a college campus.

Other examples include the television program Politically Incorrect, George Carlins “Euphemisms” routine, and The Politically Correct Scrapbook.[69] The popularity of the South Park cartoon program led to the creation of the term “South Park Republican” by Andrew Sullivan, and later the book South Park Conservatives by Brian C. Anderson.[70] In its Season 19 (2015), South Park introduced the character PC Principal, who embodies the principle, to poke fun at the principle of political correctness.[71]

The Colbert Report’s host Stephen Colbert often talked, satirically, about the “PC Police”.[72]

Groups who oppose certain generally accepted scientific views about evolution, second-hand tobacco smoke, AIDS, global warming, race, and other politically contentious scientific matters have used the term “political correctness” to describe what they view as unwarranted rejection of their perspective on these issues by a scientific community they feel is corrupted by liberal politics.[73]

Graham Good, an academic at the University of British Columbia, wrote that the term was widely used in debates on university education in Canada. Writing about a 1995 report on the Political Science department at his university, he concluded:”‘Political correctness’ has become a popular phrase because it catches a certain kind of self-righteous and judgmental tone in some and a pervasive anxiety in others who, fearing that they may do something wrong, adjust their facial expressions, and pause in their speech to make sure they are not doing or saying anything inappropriate. The climate this has created on campuses is at least as bad in Canada as in the United States.”[74]

In Hong Kong, as the 1997 handover drew nearer, greater control over the press was exercised by both owners and the Chinese state. This had a direct impact on news coverage of relatively sensitive political issues. The Chinese authorities exerted pressure on individual newspapers to take pro-Beijing stances on controversial issues.[75] Tung Chee-hwa’s policy advisers and senior bureaucrats increasingly linked their actions and remarks to “political correctness.” Zhaojia Liu and Siu-kai Lau, writing in The first Tung Chee-hwa administration: the first five years of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, said that “Hong Kong has traditionally been characterized as having freedom of speech and freedom of the press, but that an unintended consequence of emphasizing political ‘correctness’ is to limit the space for such freedom of expression.”[76]

In New Zealand, controversies over PC surfaced during the 1990s regarding the social studies school curriculum.[77][78]

“Political correctness” is a label typically used to describe liberal terms and actions, but not for equivalent attempts to mold language and behavior on the right.[79] However, the term “right-wing political correctness” is sometimes applied by commentators,[80] especially when drawing parallels: in 1995, one author used the term “conservative correctness” arguing, in relation to higher education, that “critics of political correctness show a curious blindness when it comes to examples of conservative correctness. Most often, the case is entirely ignored or censorship of the Left is justified as a positive virtue. […] A balanced perspective was lost, and everyone missed the fact that people on all sides were sometimes censored.”[25]

In 2003, french fries and french toast were renamed “freedom fries” and “freedom toast” in three U.S. House of Representatives cafeterias in response to France’s opposition to the proposed invasion of Iraq; this was described as “polluting the already confused concept of political correctness.”[81] In 2004, then Australian Labor leader Mark Latham described conservative calls for “civility” in politics as “the new political correctness.”[82]

In 2012, Paul Krugman wrote: “the big threat to our discourse is right-wing political correctness, which unlike the liberal version has lots of power and money behind it. And the goal is very much the kind of thing Orwell tried to convey with his notion of “Newspeak”: to make it impossible to talk, and possibly even think, about ideas that challenge the established order.”[27]

After Mike Pence was booed at a November 2016 performance of Hamilton, president-elect Trump called it harassment and asked for a “safe and special place”.[83] Chrissy Teigen commented that it was “the very thing him and his supporters make fun of as liberal political correctness.”[84]

Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute defined the right’s own version of political correctness as “patriotic correctness”.[85] Vox editor Dara Lind summarized the definition as “a brand of right-wing hypersensitivity that gets just as offended by insults to American pride and patriotism (like protests against the president-elect or “The Star-Spangled Banner”) as any college activist gets over insults to diversity.”[86] Jim Geraghty of National Review replied to Nowrasteh, stating that “There is no right-wing equivalent to political correctness.”[87][why?]

In 2015 and 2016, leading up to the 2016 United States presidential election, Republican candidate Donald Trump used political correctness as a common target in his rhetoric.[86][88][24] According to Trump, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were willing to let ordinary Americans suffer because their first priority was political correctness.[89]

In the Huffington Post, Eric Mink characterized Trump’s concept of “political correctness”:

Political correctness is a controversial social force in a nation with a constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression, and it raises legitimate issues well worth discussing and debating. But thats not what Trump is doing. Hes not a rebel speaking unpopular truths to power. Hes not standing up for honest discussions of deeply contentious issues. Hes not out there defying rules handed down by elites to control what we say. All Trumps defying is common decency.[24]

Following the 2016 election, Los Angeles Times columnist Jessica Roy wrote that “political correctness” is one of the key terms used by the American alt-right, who refer to it as being “responsible for most of society’s ills”.[90]

Left forces of “political correctness” have been blamed for censorship, with Time citing campaigns against violence on network television in the US as contributing to a “mainstream culture [which] has become cautious, sanitized, scared of its own shadow” because of “the watchful eye of the p.c. police”, even though in John Wilson’s view protests and advertiser boycotts targeting TV shows are generally organized by right-wing religious groups campaigning against violence, sex, and depictions of homosexuality on television.[91]

In the United Kingdom, some newspapers reported that a nursery school had altered the nursery rhyme “Baa Baa Black Sheep” to read “Baa Baa Rainbow Sheep” and had banned the original.[92] But it was later reported that in fact the Parents and Children Together (PACT) nursery had the children “turn the song into an action rhyme…. They sing happy, sad, bouncing, hopping, pink, blue, black and white sheep etc.”[93] This story was widely circulated and later extended to suggest that other language bans applied to the terms “black coffee” and “blackboard”.[94] Private Eye magazine reported that similar stories had been published in the British press since The Sun first ran them in 1986.[95]

The term “politically correct”, with its suggestion of Stalinist orthodoxy, is spoken more with irony and disapproval than with reverence. But, across the country the term “P.C.”, as it is commonly abbreviated, is being heard more and more in debates over what should be taught at the universities.

Here is the original post:

Political correctness – Wikipedia

The politically correct attack on Ilhan Omar – news.yahoo.com

Theres a phrase for the attack on Rep. Ilhan Omar thats on the tip of my tongue, and if you give me a minute Ill think of it.

Omar, the freshman Democrat from Minnesota, was guilty, in the eyes of President Trump, various Republicans in Congress and those guardians of civil discourse, the editors of the New York Post, of failing to show proper deference in discussing the attacks of 9/11. What she said, in a speech last month to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Muslim civil-rights organization, was that CAIR was founded after 9/11 because they recognized that some people did something, and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties. (She was mistaken about the year CAIR was established it was 1994 but her intended point, that 9/11 was a seminal moment for the organization, was correct.)

Her critics focused on her use of the phrase some people did something, rather than the Republican-approved description of 9/11 as a horrible attack by radical Islamist terrorists on the United States, leading to the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians and heroic first responders. Which is accurate, and it would probably help Omar get past the episode if she said as much. But in the context of her remarks, some people did something was clearly meant to signal her own distance from the attacks she was 19 years old and living in Minnesota, a refugee from Somalia and a naturalized U.S. citizen and the unfairness of being stigmatized, along with all other American Muslims, for what some people did.

Im trying to think of the term for that kind of enforcement of rigid norms of discourse. Factional decorum? No, thats not it. Ideological propriety? Dont think so.

Obviously, almost from the moment they occurred, the attacks of 9/11 have been used to score political points, not always in what one might consider good faith. The party now attacking Omar nominated and renominated an administration that used those attacks as a pretext to launch a war against Iraq, which even the current Republican president has described as a disaster. New Yorks mayor at the time, Rudy Giuliani, cited his leadership in the aftermath as his prime credential in his 2008 presidential campaign. (It was Joe Biden, a candidate for the Democratic nomination, who memorably described Giulianis speeches as consisting of a noun, a verb and 9/11.)

During his own campaign, Trump claimed to have seen on television thousands and thousands of people in Muslim neighborhoods in New Jersey cheering as those buildings came down, something that by all evidence never happened.

And while Omars reference to some people may have come across as unacceptably vague, evangelists Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson were outspoken in pinning the blame for 9/11 on those they considered the real perpetrators, the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way. These people, Falwell said on Robertsons television broadcast, just days after 9/11, brought about the calamity by making God mad at the United States.

All of them who have tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say, You helped this happen, Falwell continued, to which Robertson responded, I totally concur.

Let me be clear: Falwell and Robertson are entitled to their beliefs, preposterous though they might be, and even if they quickly (and unconvincingly) disavowed them once they circulated beyond the friendly confines of the Christian Broadcasting Network. But Omars failure to focus-group test her description of 9/11 left her open to the kind of attack that is becoming all too common in America, from both ends of the ideological spectrum. Language is increasingly deployed in the service of advancing an argument rather than conveying meaning.

On the activist left it is impermissible to speak of the Palestinians except in the context of their oppression by Israel; the fact that some Palestinians are terrorists goes unmentioned. The crisis of incarceration in some communities is discussed as if it were a unitary, impersonal phenomenon, unrelated to the reasons some people are incarcerated. These are not simple issues. The Palestinians are indeed oppressed, and some jurisdictions jail people for stupid or venal reasons, such as minor drug possession or not paying a traffic fine. But when we insist they can only be discussed through an ideological lens the reverse, in this case, of the lens conservatives have turned on Omar we make reasoned discourse more difficult.

In fact, I think I have figured out how to refer to the attacks on Omar.

Its coming back to me now: its political correctness.

_____

Read more from Yahoo News:

See the article here:

The politically correct attack on Ilhan Omar – news.yahoo.com

political correctness | Definition, Origin, History …

Political correctness (PC), term used to refer to language that seems intended to give the least amount of offense, especially when describing groups identified by external markers such as race, gender, culture, or sexual orientation. The concept has been discussed, disputed, criticized, and satirized by commentators from across the political spectrum. The term has often been used derisively to ridicule the notion that altering language usage can change the publics perceptions and beliefs as well as influence outcomes.

The term first appeared in Marxist-Leninist vocabulary following the Russian Revolution of 1917. At that time it was used to describe adherence to the policies and principles of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (that is, the party line). During the late 1970s and early 1980s the term began to be used wittily by liberal politicians to refer to the extremism of some left-wing issues, particularly regarding what was perceived as an emphasis on rhetoric over content. In the early 1990s the term was used by conservatives to question and oppose what they perceived as the rise of liberal left-wing curriculum and teaching methods on university and college campuses in the United States. By the late 1990s the usage of the term had again decreased, and it was most frequently employed by comedians and others to lampoon political language. At times it was also used by the left to scoff at conservative political themes.

Linguistically, the practice of what is called political correctness seems to be rooted in a desire to eliminate exclusion of various identity groups based on language usage. According to the Sapir-Whorf, or Whorfian, hypothesis, our perception of reality is determined by our thought processes, which are influenced by the language we use. In this way language shapes our reality and tells us how to think about and respond to that reality. Language also reveals and promotes our biases. Therefore, according to the hypothesis, using sexist language promotes sexism and using racial language promotes racism.

Those who are most strongly opposed to so-called political correctness view it as censorship and a curtailment of freedom of speech that places limits on debates in the public arena. They contend that such language boundaries inevitably lead to self-censorship and restrictions on behaviour. They further believe that political correctness perceives offensive language where none exists. Others believe that political correctness or politically correct has been used as an epithet to stop legitimate attempts to curb hate speech and minimize exclusionary speech practices. Ultimately, the ongoing discussion surrounding political correctness seems to centre on language, naming, and whose definitions are accepted.

Read this article:

political correctness | Definition, Origin, History …

Political correctness – Simple English Wikipedia, the free …

Political correctness (or PC for short) means using words or behavior which will not offend any group of people. Most people think it is important for everyone to be treated equally, fairly and with dignity. Some words that are unkind to some people have been used for a long time. Some of these words have now been replaced by other words that are not offensive. These new words are described as politically correct.The term is often used in a mocking sense when attempts at avoiding offense are seen to go too far.

This term has been used since the early 1970s. It started being used in the modern negative sense in the late 80s in America.

Politically correct words or terms are used to show differences between people or groups in a non-offensive way. This difference may be because of race, gender, beliefs, religion, sexual orientation, or because they have a mental or physical disability, or any difference from what is considered the norm.

Throughout the 20th century women fought to have the same rights as men. In PC language this is seen in changes to job titles such as “policeman”, “postman”, and “chairman” which now commonly go by the gender-neutral titles “police officer”, “letter carrier” and “chairperson” or “chair” as well as with terms having broader application, such as “humankind” replacing “mankind”.

People who are attracted to the same gender are usually referred to as ‘homosexual’. Likewise, people who are attracted to people of both genders are usually referred to as “bisexual”. However, both of these terms are seen as being perfectly fine by the more politically liberal oriented people.

People who are mentally disabled are now rarely described as “mentally retarded” (sometimes called “M.R.”) but may be said to have “special needs”. M.R. has been changed to I.D.; Intellectual Disabilities.

People who are blind or deaf may be referred to as “vision impaired” and “hearing impaired”. People who cannot speak are never “dumb” but “mute” or “without speech”.

The overall terms ‘handicapped’ and ‘disabled’ are no longer considered appropriate (there is no distinction between physical or mental, acquired or inborn.) The people first/PC term is ‘challenged’. This term better reflects the fact they are different, rather than less.

Some of the new politically correct words are often criticized for being rather ridiculous. Some examples of these are the terms ending in challenged. For example, someone who is very short might be described as “vertically challenged”. People also say that things that are obviously bad are called by something else which hides the fact that they are bad. For example, young people who are in trouble with the law, instead of being called “juvenile delinquents” became “children at risk”. Some PC terms may be ambiguous i.e. have two possible meanings. “hearing impaired” can also refer to someone who has partial hearing (hard of hearing) and “vision impaired” can also refer to someone who has partial vision.

Continued here:

Political correctness – Simple English Wikipedia, the free …

Political correctness – Wikipedia

This article is about political correctness. For other uses of “PC” or “P.C.”, see PC (disambiguation).

The term political correctness (adjectivally: politically correct; commonly abbreviated PC) is used to describe language, policies, or measures that are intended to avoid offense or disadvantage to members of particular groups in society.[1][2][3][4][5] Since the late 1980s, the term has come to refer to avoiding language or behavior that can be seen as excluding, marginalizing, or insulting groups of people considered disadvantaged or discriminated against, especially groups defined by sex or race. In public discourse and the media, it is generally used as a pejorative, implying that these policies are excessive or unwarranted.[6][3][7][8][9][10][11]

While earlier usage of the term referred to the strict adherence to political orthodoxy, the contemporary pejorative usage of the term emerged from conservative criticism of the New Left in the late 20th century. This usage was popularized by a number of articles in The New York Times and other media throughout the 1990s,[12][13][14][15][16][17] and was widely used in the debate about Allan Bloom’s 1987 book The Closing of the American Mind,[7][9][18][19] and gained further currency in response to Roger Kimball’s Tenured Radicals (1990),[7][9][20][21] and conservative author Dinesh D’Souza’s 1991 book Illiberal Education in which he condemned what he saw as liberal efforts to advance self-victimization and multiculturalism through language, affirmative action, and changes to the content of school and university curricula.[7][8][20][22]

Commentators on the political left in the United States contend that conservatives use the concept of political correctness to downplay and divert attention from substantively discriminatory behavior against disadvantaged groups.[20][23][24] They also argue that the political right enforces its own forms of political correctness to suppress criticism of its favored constituencies and ideologies.[25][26][27] In the United States, the term has played a major role in the “culture war” between liberals and conservatives.[28]

The term “politically correct” was used infrequently until the latter part of the 20th century. This earlier use did not communicate the social disapproval usually implied in more recent usage. In 1793, the term “politically correct” appeared in a U.S. Supreme Court judgment of a political lawsuit.[29] The term also had use in other English-speaking countries in the 1800s.[30] William Safire states that the first recorded use of the term in the typical modern sense is by Toni Cade Bambara in the 1970 anthology The Black Woman.[31] The term probably entered modern use in the United Kingdom around 1975.[11][clarification needed]

In the early-to-mid 20th century, the phrase “politically correct” was used to describe strict adherence to a range of ideological orthodoxies. In 1934, The New York Times reported that Nazi Germany was granting reporting permits “only to pure ‘Aryans’ whose opinions are politically correct.”[2]

As Marxist-Leninist movements gained political power, the phrase came to be associated with accusations of dogmatic application of doctrine, in debates between American Communists and American Socialists. This usage referred to the Communist party line which, in the eyes of the Socialists, provided “correct” positions on all political matters. According to American educator Herbert Kohl, writing about debates in New York in the late 1940s and early 1950s,

The term “politically correct” was used disparagingly, to refer to someone whose loyalty to the CP line overrode compassion, and led to bad politics. It was used by Socialists against Communists, and was meant to separate out Socialists who believed in egalitarian moral ideas from dogmatic Communists who would advocate and defend party positions regardless of their moral substance.

In the 1970s, the American New Left began using the term “politically correct”.[32] In the essay The Black Woman: An Anthology (1970), Toni Cade Bambara said that “a man cannot be politically correct and a [male] chauvinist, too.” Thereafter, the term was often used as self-critical satire. Debra L. Shultz said that “throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the New Left, feminists, and progressives… used their term ‘politically correct’ ironically, as a guard against their own orthodoxy in social change efforts.”[7][32][33] PC is used in the comic book Merton of the Movement, by Bobby London, which was followed by the term ideologically sound, in the comic strips of Bart Dickon.[32][34] In her essay “Toward a feminist Revolution” (1992) Ellen Willis said: “In the early eighties, when feminists used the term ‘political correctness’, it was used to refer sarcastically to the anti-pornography movement’s efforts to define a ‘feminist sexuality’.”[35]

Stuart Hall suggests one way in which the original use of the term may have developed into the modern one:

According to one version, political correctness actually began as an in-joke on the left: radical students on American campuses acting out an ironic replay of the Bad Old Days BS (Before the Sixties) when every revolutionary groupuscule had a party line about everything. They would address some glaring examples of sexist or racist behaviour by their fellow students in imitation of the tone of voice of the Red Guards or Cultural Revolution Commissar: “Not very ‘politically correct’, Comrade!”[36]

Allan Bloom’s 1987 book The Closing of the American Mind[18] heralded a debate about “political correctness” in American higher education in the 1980s and 1990s.[7][9][19][37] Professor of English literary and cultural studies at CMU Jeffrey J. Williams wrote that the “assault on … political correctness that simmered through the Reagan years, gained bestsellerdom with Bloom’s Closing of the American Mind.”[38] According to Z.F. Gamson, Bloom’s book “attacked the faculty for ‘political correctness’.”[39] Prof. of Social Work at CSU Tony Platt says the “campaign against ‘political correctness'” was launched by Bloom’s book in 1987.[40]

An October 1990 New York Times article by Richard Bernstein is credited with popularizing the term.[14][16][17][41][42] At this time, the term was mainly being used within academia: “Across the country the term p.c., as it is commonly abbreviated, is being heard more and more in debates over what should be taught at the universities”.[12] Nexis citations in “arcnews/curnews” reveal only seventy total citations in articles to “political correctness” for 1990; but one year later, Nexis records 1,532 citations, with a steady increase to more than 7,000 citations by 1994.[41][43] In May 1991, The New York Times had a follow-up article, according to which the term was increasingly being used in a wider public arena:

What has come to be called “political correctness,” a term that began to gain currency at the start of the academic year last fall, has spread in recent months and has become the focus of an angry national debate, mainly on campuses, but also in the larger arenas of American life.

The previously obscure far-left term became common currency in the lexicon of the conservative social and political challenges against progressive teaching methods and curriculum changes in the secondary schools and universities of the U.S.[8][44][45][46][47][48] Policies, behavior, and speech codes that the speaker or the writer regarded as being the imposition of a liberal orthodoxy, were described and criticized as “politically correct”.[20] In May 1991, at a commencement ceremony for a graduating class of the University of Michigan, then U.S. President George H.W. Bush used the term in his speech: “The notion of political correctness has ignited controversy across the land. And although the movement arises from the laudable desire to sweep away the debris of racism and sexism and hatred, it replaces old prejudice with new ones. It declares certain topics off-limits, certain expression off-limits, even certain gestures off-limits.”[49]

After 1991, its use as a pejorative phrase became widespread amongst conservatives in the US.[8] It became a key term encapsulating conservative concerns about the left in culture and political debate more broadly, as well as in academia. Two articles on the topic in late 1990 in Forbes and Newsweek both used the term “thought police” in their headlines, exemplifying the tone of the new usage, but it was Dinesh D’Souza’s Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus (1991) which “captured the press’s imagination.”[8] Similar critical terminology was used by D’Souza for a range of policies in academia around victimization, supporting multiculturalism through affirmative action, sanctions against anti-minority hate speech, and revising curricula (sometimes referred to as “canon busting”).[8][50][not in citation given] These trends were at least in part a response to multiculturalism and the rise of identity politics, with movements such as feminism, gay rights movements and ethnic minority movements. That response received funding from conservative foundations and think tanks such as the John M. Olin Foundation, which funded several books such as D’Souza’s.[7][20]

Herbert Kohl, in 1992, commented that a number of neoconservatives who promoted the use of the term “politically correct” in the early 1990s were former Communist Party members, and, as a result, familiar with the Marxist use of the phrase. He argued that in doing so, they intended “to insinuate that egalitarian democratic ideas are actually authoritarian, orthodox, and Communist-influenced, when they oppose the right of people to be racist, sexist, and homophobic.”[3]

During the 1990s, conservative and right-wing politicians, think-tanks, and speakers adopted the phrase as a pejorative descriptor of their ideological enemies especially in the context of the Culture Wars about language and the content of public-school curricula. Roger Kimball, in Tenured Radicals, endorsed Frederick Crews’s view that PC is best described as “Left Eclecticism”, a term defined by Kimball as “any of a wide variety of anti-establishment modes of thought from structuralism and poststructuralism, deconstruction, and Lacanian analyst to feminist, homosexual, black, and other patently political forms of criticism.”[21][38]

Liberal commentators have argued that the conservatives and reactionaries who used the term did so in effort to divert political discussion away from the substantive matters of resolving societal discrimination such as racial, social class, gender, and legal inequality against people whom conservatives do not consider part of the social mainstream.[7][23][51] Jan Narveson wrote that “that phrase was born to live between scare-quotes: it suggests that the operative considerations in the area so called are merely political, steamrolling the genuine reasons of principle for which we ought to be acting…”[6] Commenting in 2001, one such British journalist,[52][53] Polly Toynbee, said “the phrase is an empty, right-wing smear, designed only to elevate its user”, and, in 2010, “the phrase ‘political correctness’ was born as a coded cover for all who still want to say Paki, spastic, or queer”.[54] Another British journalist, Will Hutton,[55] wrote in 2001:

Political correctness is one of the brilliant tools that the American Right developed in the mid1980s, as part of its demolition of American liberalism…. What the sharpest thinkers on the American Right saw quickly was that by declaring war on the cultural manifestations of liberalism by levelling the charge of “political correctness” against its exponents they could discredit the whole political project.

Glenn Loury wrote in 1994 that: “to address the subject of “political correctness” when power and authority within the academic community is being contested by parties on either side of that issue, is to invite scrutiny of one’s arguments by would-be “friends” and “enemies.” Combatants from the left and the right will try to assess whether a writer is “for them” or “against them.”[56][check quotation syntax]

Much of the modern debate on the term was sparked by conservative critiques of liberal bias in academia and education,[7] and conservatives have used it as a major line of attack since.[8] University of Pennsylvania professor Alan Charles Kors and lawyer Harvey A. Silverglate connect speech codes in US universities to philosopher Herbert Marcuse. They claim that speech codes create a “climate of repression”, arguing that they are based on “Marcusean logic”. The speech codes, “mandate a redefined notion of “freedom”, based on the belief that the imposition of a moral agenda on a community is justified”, a view which, “requires less emphasis on individual rights and more on assuring “historically oppressed” persons the means of achieving equal rights.”[57] Kors and Silverglate later established the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), which campaigns against infringement of rights of due process, in particular “speech codes”.[58][unreliable source?] Similarly, a common conservative criticism of higher education in the United States is that the political views of the faculty are much more liberal than the general population, and that this situation contributes to an atmosphere of political correctness.[59] William Deresiewicz argues that political correctness largely functions as a sort of religious dogma on college campuses and while it may have some noble goals, it is largely about power, censoring its opponents to ensure the dogma cannot be questioned, resulting in censorship and self-censorship of those who disagree. This also results in its tenets being applied inconsistently – Deresiewicz argues that while it ostensibly opposes prejudice, its proponents will hurl prejudicial insults against demographics they hold in contempt. Deresiewicz also argues that political correctness is largely the result of for-profit education, as campus faculty and staff are wary of angering students upon whose fees they depend. Deresiewicz also observes that political correctness on campuses largely ignores issues of social class, which he suggests is due to the fact that most of its adherents come from economically privileged backgrounds.[60]

Some conservative commentators in the West argue that “political correctness” and multiculturalism are part of a conspiracy with the ultimate goal of undermining Judeo-Christian values. This theory, which holds that political correctness originates from the critical theory of the Frankfurt School as part of a conspiracy that its proponents call “Cultural Marxism”, is generally known as the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory by academics.[61] The theory originated with Michael Minnicino’s 1992 essay “New Dark Age: Frankfurt School and ‘Political Correctness'”, published in a Lyndon LaRouche movement journal.[62] In 2001, conservative commentator Patrick Buchanan wrote in The Death of the West that “political correctness is cultural Marxism”, and that “its trademark is intolerance”.[63]

In the US, the term has been widely used in books and journals, but in Britain, usage has been confined mainly to the popular press.[64] Many such authors and popular-media figures, particularly on the right, have used the term to criticize what they see as bias in the media.[6][20] William McGowan argues that journalists get stories wrong or ignore stories worthy of coverage, because of what McGowan perceives to be their liberal ideologies and their fear of offending minority groups.[65] Robert Novak, in his essay “Political Correctness Has No Place in the Newsroom”, used the term to blame newspapers for adopting language use policies that he thinks tend to excessively avoid the appearance of bias. He argued that political correctness in language not only destroys meaning but also demeans the people who are meant to be protected.[66] Authors David Sloan and Emily Hoff claim that in the US, journalists shrug off concerns about political correctness in the newsroom, equating the political correctness criticisms with the old “liberal media bias” label.[67]

Political correctness is often satirized, for example in The PC Manifesto (1992) by Saul Jerushalmy and Rens Zbignieuw X,[68] and Politically Correct Bedtime Stories (1994) by James Finn Garner, which presents fairy tales re-written from an exaggerated politically correct perspective. In 1994, the comedy film PCU took a look at political correctness on a college campus.

Other examples include the television program Politically Incorrect, George Carlins “Euphemisms” routine, and The Politically Correct Scrapbook.[69] The popularity of the South Park cartoon program led to the creation of the term “South Park Republican” by Andrew Sullivan, and later the book South Park Conservatives by Brian C. Anderson.[70] In its Season 19 (2015), South Park introduced the character PC Principal, who embodies the principle, to poke fun at the principle of political correctness.[71]

The Colbert Report’s host Stephen Colbert often talked, satirically, about the “PC Police”.[72]

Groups who oppose certain generally accepted scientific views about evolution, second-hand tobacco smoke, AIDS, global warming, race, and other politically contentious scientific matters have used the term “political correctness” to describe what they view as unwarranted rejection of their perspective on these issues by a scientific community they feel is corrupted by liberal politics.[73]

Graham Good, an academic at the University of British Columbia, wrote that the term was widely used in debates on university education in Canada. Writing about a 1995 report on the Political Science department at his university, he concluded:”‘Political correctness’ has become a popular phrase because it catches a certain kind of self-righteous and judgmental tone in some and a pervasive anxiety in others who, fearing that they may do something wrong, adjust their facial expressions, and pause in their speech to make sure they are not doing or saying anything inappropriate. The climate this has created on campuses is at least as bad in Canada as in the United States.”[74]

In Hong Kong, as the 1997 handover drew nearer, greater control over the press was exercised by both owners and the Chinese state. This had a direct impact on news coverage of relatively sensitive political issues. The Chinese authorities exerted pressure on individual newspapers to take pro-Beijing stances on controversial issues.[75] Tung Chee-hwa’s policy advisers and senior bureaucrats increasingly linked their actions and remarks to “political correctness.” Zhaojia Liu and Siu-kai Lau, writing in The first Tung Chee-hwa administration: the first five years of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, said that “Hong Kong has traditionally been characterized as having freedom of speech and freedom of press, but that an unintended consequence of emphasizing political ‘correctness’ is to limit the space for such freedom of expression.”[76]

In New Zealand, controversies over PC surfaced during the 1990s regarding the social studies school curriculum.[77][78]

“Political correctness” is a label typically used to describe liberal terms and actions, but not for equivalent attempts to mold language and behavior on the right.[79] However, the term “right-wing political correctness” is sometimes applied by commentators,[80] especially when drawing parallels: in 1995, one author used the term “conservative correctness” arguing, in relation to higher education, that “critics of political correctness show a curious blindness when it comes to examples of conservative correctness. Most often, the case is entirely ignored or censorship of the Left is justified as a positive virtue. […] A balanced perspective was lost, and everyone missed the fact that people on all sides were sometimes censored.”[25]

In 2003, french fries and french toast were renamed “freedom fries” and “freedom toast” in three U.S. House of Representatives cafeterias in response to France’s opposition to the proposed invasion of Iraq; this was described as “polluting the already confused concept of political correctness.”[81] In 2004, then Australian Labor leader Mark Latham described conservative calls for “civility” in politics as “the new political correctness.”[82]

In 2012, Paul Krugman wrote: “the big threat to our discourse is right-wing political correctness, which unlike the liberal version has lots of power and money behind it. And the goal is very much the kind of thing Orwell tried to convey with his notion of Newspeak: to make it impossible to talk, and possibly even think, about ideas that challenge the established order.”[27]

After Mike Pence was booed at a November 2016 performance of Hamilton, president-elect Trump called it harassment and asked for a “safe and special place”.[83] Chrissy Teigen commented that it was “the very thing him and his supporters make fun of as liberal political correctness.”[84]

Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute defined the right’s own version of political correctness as “patriotic correctness”.[85] Vox editor Dara Lind summarized the definition as “a brand of right-wing hypersensitivity that gets just as offended by insults to American pride and patriotism (like protests against the president-elect or “The Star-Spangled Banner”) as any college activist gets over insults to diversity.”[86] Jim Geraghty of National Review replied to Nowrasteh, stating that “There is no right-wing equivalent to political correctness.”[87][why?]

In 2015 and 2016, leading up to the 2016 United States presidential election, Republican candidate Donald Trump used political correctness as a common target in his rhetoric.[86][88][24] According to Trump, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were willing to let ordinary Americans suffer because their first priority was political correctness.[89]

In the Huffington Post, Eric Mink characterized Trump’s concept of “political correctness”:

Political correctness is a controversial social force in a nation with a constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression, and it raises legitimate issues well worth discussing and debating. But thats not what Trump is doing. Hes not a rebel speaking unpopular truths to power. Hes not standing up for honest discussions of deeply contentious issues. Hes not out there defying rules handed down by elites to control what we say. All Trumps defying is common decency.[24]

Following the 2016 election, Los Angeles Times columnist Jessica Roy wrote that “political correctness” is one of the key terms used by the American alt-right, who refer to it as being “responsible for most of society’s ills”.[90]

Left forces of “political correctness” have been blamed for censorship, with Time citing campaigns against violence on network television in the US as contributing to a “mainstream culture [which] has become cautious, sanitized, scared of its own shadow” because of “the watchful eye of the p.c. police”, even though in John Wilson’s view protests and advertiser boycotts targeting TV shows are generally organized by right-wing religious groups campaigning against violence, sex, and depictions of homosexuality on television.[91]

In the United Kingdom, some newspapers reported that a nursery school had altered the nursery rhyme “Baa Baa Black Sheep” to read “Baa Baa Rainbow Sheep” and had banned the original.[92] But it was later reported that in fact the Parents and Children Together (PACT) nursery had the children “turn the song into an action rhyme…. They sing happy, sad, bouncing, hopping, pink, blue, black and white sheep etc.”[93] This story was widely circulated and later extended to suggest that other language bans applied to the terms “black coffee” and “blackboard”.[94] Private Eye magazine reported that similar stories had been published in the British press since The Sun first ran them in 1986.[95]

The term “politically correct”, with its suggestion of Stalinist orthodoxy, is spoken more with irony and disapproval than with reverence. But, across the country the term “P.C.”, as it is commonly abbreviated, is being heard more and more in debates over what should be taught at the universities.

See the original post here:

Political correctness – Wikipedia

Political correctness – Simple English Wikipedia, the free …

Political correctness (or PC for short) means using words or behavior which will not offend any group of people. Most people think it is important for everyone to be treated equally, fairly and with dignity. Some words that are unkind to some people have been used for a long time. Some of these words have now been replaced by other words that are not offensive. These new words are described as politically correct.The term is often used in a mocking sense when attempts at avoiding offense are seen to go too far.

This term has been used since the early 1970s. It started being used in the modern negative sense in the late 80s in America.

Politically correct words or terms are used to show differences between people or groups in a non-offensive way. This difference may be because of race, gender, beliefs, religion, sexual orientation, or because they have a mental or physical disability, or any difference from what is considered the norm.

Throughout the 20th century women fought to have the same rights as men. In PC language this is seen in changes to job titles such as “policeman”, “postman”, and “chairman” which now commonly go by the gender-neutral titles “police officer”, “letter carrier” and “chairperson” or “chair” as well as with terms having broader application, such as “humankind” replacing “mankind”.

People who are attracted to the same gender are usually referred to as ‘homosexual’. Likewise, people who are attracted to people of both genders are usually referred to as “bisexual”. However, both of these terms are seen as being perfectly fine by the more politically liberal oriented people.

People who are mentally disabled are now rarely described as “mentally retarded” (sometimes called “M.R.”) but may be said to have “special needs”. M.R. has been changed to I.D.; Intellectual Disabilities.

People who are blind or deaf may be referred to as “vision impaired” and “hearing impaired”. People who cannot speak are never “dumb” but “mute” or “without speech”.

The overall terms ‘handicapped’ and ‘disabled’ are no longer considered appropriate (there is no distinction between physical or mental, acquired or inborn.) The people first/PC term is ‘challenged’. This term better reflects the fact they are different, rather than less.

Some of the new politically correct words are often criticized for being rather ridiculous. Some examples of these are the terms ending in challenged. For example, someone who is very short might be described as “vertically challenged”. People also say that things that are obviously bad are called by something else which hides the fact that they are bad. For example, young people who are in trouble with the law, instead of being called “juvenile delinquents” became “children at risk”. Some PC terms may be ambiguous i.e. have two possible meanings. “hearing impaired” can also refer to someone who has partial hearing (hard of hearing) and “vision impaired” can also refer to someone who has partial vision.

View post:

Political correctness – Simple English Wikipedia, the free …

Urban Dictionary: political correctness

Something that started out as a sort of moral common sense – actually not a bad idea, eg. saying ‘black person’ instead of ‘god-damn cotton-pickin’ nigger’.However, the whole thing got utterly out of hand in the early 90s to the point where a lot of people will say ‘Afro-Carribean’ or ‘Afro-American’ because they think it’s racist to say ‘black’! It gets even more ridiculous when you consider that in some parts people think it’s offensive to ‘blackboard’ or ‘black coffee’.

What began as a force for good (considering the number of people who really are racist, sexist and homophobic) has since become a laughing stock beacause of the ridiculous extremes to which certain neurotic ultra-liberals took it – cf. a person being ‘vertically challenged’ rather than short. This has actually undone a lot of progress made in changing bigoted attitudes (as bigot can claim any offence taken at their views is ‘political correctness gone mad), whilst making people feel guilty for enjoying anything but the blandest, most anaemic humour for fear of being ‘offensive’. I mean, seriously, what’s funnier out of ‘Friends’ and ‘South Park’? (Or ‘The League of Gentlemen’ for the benefit of any Brits out there?)

At the same time as straight white able-bodied men are going out of their way to talk about ‘ethnic people’ (who ISN’T ethnic!?) and those of ‘different sexual orientation’, there are blacks calling themselves niggas (which has been going on for years), gays calling themselves (and eachother!) poof, queens and queers, and so on – the real way to neutralize a term used as as an insult is for those to whom it was applied to use it themselves.

AT its worst, political correctness is nothing different form Orwell’s Newspeak – an attempt to change the way people think by forcibly changing the way they speak. So let’s have a backlash against the nannying, interefering, cotton-wool Stalinism ‘ploitical correctness’ has become – not to placate bigots, but to speak the truth and enjoy outrageous humour like we’re meant to. Remember, the next time someone says they don’t like Harry Potter because Hermione is a stereotypically sensitive girl, the relevant word to call them is ‘cunt’.See also liberal guilt, stereotyping, stupidity

b.t.w. a great many stereotypes exist because they’re essentially TRUE.

Limp-wristed idiot: “I’m not sure I feel comfortable with your use of the word ‘woman’, and the assumption of an inflexible gender binary that goes with it…”

Read the original post:

Urban Dictionary: political correctness

Political correctness (PC) | Britannica.com

Political correctness (PC), term used to refer to language that seems intended to give the least amount of offense, especially when describing groups identified by external markers such as race, gender, culture, or sexual orientation. The concept has been discussed, disputed, criticized, and satirized by commentators from across the political spectrum. The term has often been used derisively to ridicule the notion that altering language usage can change the publics perceptions and beliefs as well as influence outcomes.

The term first appeared in Marxist-Leninist vocabulary following the Russian Revolution of 1917. At that time it was used to describe adherence to the policies and principles of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (that is, the party line). During the late 1970s and early 1980s the term began to be used wittily by liberal politicians to refer to the extremism of some left-wing issues, particularly regarding what was perceived as an emphasis on rhetoric over content. In the early 1990s the term was used by conservatives to question and oppose what they perceived as the rise of liberal left-wing curriculum and teaching methods on university and college campuses in the United States. By the late 1990s the usage of the term had again decreased, and it was most frequently employed by comedians and others to lampoon political language. At times it was also used by the left to scoff at conservative political themes.

Linguistically, the practice of what is called political correctness seems to be rooted in a desire to eliminate exclusion of various identity groups based on language usage. According to the Sapir-Whorf, or Whorfian, hypothesis, our perception of reality is determined by our thought processes, which are influenced by the language we use. In this way language shapes our reality and tells us how to think about and respond to that reality. Language also reveals and promotes our biases. Therefore, according to the hypothesis, using sexist language promotes sexism and using racial language promotes racism.

Those who are most strongly opposed to so-called political correctness view it as censorship and a curtailment of freedom of speech that places limits on debates in the public arena. They contend that such language boundaries inevitably lead to self-censorship and restrictions on behaviour. They further believe that political correctness perceives offensive language where none exists. Others believe that political correctness or politically correct has been used as an epithet to stop legitimate attempts to curb hate speech and minimize exclusionary speech practices. Ultimately, the ongoing discussion surrounding political correctness seems to centre on language, naming, and whose definitions are accepted.

See the original post here:

Political correctness (PC) | Britannica.com

20 Outrageous Examples That Show How Political Correctness …

The thought police are watching you. Back in the 1990s, lots of jokes were made about political correctness, and almost everybody thought they were really funny. Unfortunately, very few people are laughing now because political correctness has become a way of life in America. If you say the wrong thing you could lose your job or you could rapidly end up in court. Every single day, the mainstream media bombards us with subtle messages that make it clear what is appropriate and what is inappropriate, and most Americans quietly fall in line with this unwritten speech code. But just because it is not written down somewhere does not mean that it isnt real. In fact, this speech code becomes more restrictive and more suffocating with each passing year. The goal of the thought Nazis is to control what people say to one another, because eventually that will shape what most people think and what most people believe. If you dont think this is true, just try the following experiment some time. Go to a public place where a lot of people are gathered and yell out something horribly politically incorrect such as I love Jesus and watch people visibly cringe. The name of Jesus has become a curse word in our politically correct society, and we have been trained to have a negative reaction to it in public places. After that, yell out something politically correct such as I support gay marriage and watch what happens. You will probably get a bunch of smiles and quite a few people may even approach you to express their appreciation for what you just said. Of course this is going to vary depending on what area of the country you live in, but hopefully you get the idea. Billions of dollars of media programming has changed the definitions of what people consider to be acceptable and what people consider to be not acceptable. Political correctness shapes the way that we all communicate with each other every single day, and it is only going to get worse in the years ahead. Sadly, most people simply have no idea what is happening to them.

The following are 20 outrageous examples that show how political correctness is taking over America

#1 According to a new Army manual, U.S. soldiers will now be instructed to avoid any criticism of pedophilia and to avoid criticizing anything related to Islam. The following is from a recent Judicial Watch article

The draft leaked to the newspaper offers a list of taboo conversation topics that soldiers should avoid, including making derogatory comments about the Taliban, advocating womens rights, any criticism of pedophilia, directing any criticism towards Afghans, mentioning homosexuality and homosexual conduct or anything related to Islam.

#2 The Obama administration has banned all U.S. government agencies from producing any training materials that link Islam with terrorism. In fact, the FBI has gone back and purged references to Islam and terrorism from hundreds of old documents.

#3 Authorities are cracking down on public expressions of the Christian faith all over the nation, and yet atheists in New York City are allowed to put up an extremely offensive billboard in Time Square this holiday season that shows a picture of Jesus on the cross underneath a picture of Santa with the following tagline: Keep the Merry! Dump the Myth!

#4 According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, it is illegal for employers to discriminate against criminals because it has a disproportionate impact on minorities.

#5 Down in California, Governor Jerry Brown has signed a bill that will allow large numbers of illegal immigrants to legally get California drivers licenses.

#6 Should an illegal immigrant be able to get a law license and practice law in the United States? That is exactly what the State Bar of California argued earlier this year

An illegal immigrant applying for a law license in California should be allowed to receive it, the State Bar of California argues in a filing to the state Supreme Court.

Sergio Garcia, 35, of Chico, Calif., has met the rules for admission, including passing the bar exam and the moral character review, and his lack of legal status in the United States should not automatically disqualify him, the Committee of Bar Examiners said Monday.

#7 More than 75 percent of the babies born in Detroit are born to unmarried women, yet it is considered to be politically correct to suggest that there is anything wrong with that.

#8 The University of Minnesota Duluth (UMD) initiated an aggressive advertising campaign earlier this year that included online videos, billboards, and lectures that sought to raise awareness about white privilege.

#9 At one high school down in California, five students were sent home from school for wearing shirts that displayed the American flag on the Mexican holiday of Cinco de Mayo.

#10 Chris Matthews of MSNBC recently suggested that it is racist for conservatives to use the word Chicago.

#11 A judge down in North Carolina has ruled that it is unconstitutional for North Carolina to offer license plates that say Choose Life on them.

#12 The number of gay characters on television is at an all-time record high. Meanwhile, there are barely any strongly Christian characters to be found anywhere on television or in the movies, and if they do happen to show up they are almost always portrayed in a very negative light.

#13 House Speaker John Boehner recently stripped key committee positions from four rebellious conservatives in the U.S. House of Representatives. It is believed that this purge happened in order to send a message that members of the party better fall in line and support Boehner in his negotiations with Barack Obama.

#14 There is already a huge push to have a woman elected president in 2016. It doesnt appear that it even matters which woman is elected. There just seems to be a feeling that it is time for a woman to be elected even if she doesnt happen to be the best candidate.

#15 Volunteer chaplains for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department have been banned from using the name of Jesus on government property.

#16 Chaplains in the U.S. military are being forced to perform gay marriages, even if it goes against their personal religious beliefs. The few chaplains that have refused to follow orders know that it means the end of their careers.

#17 All over the country, the term manhole is being replaced with the terms utility hole or maintenance hole.

#18 In San Francisco, authorities have installed small plastic privacy screens on library computers so that perverts can continue to exercise their right to watch pornography at the library without children being exposed to it.

#19 You will never guess what is going on at one college up in Washington state

A Washington college said their non-discrimination policy prevents them from stopping a transgender man from exposing himself to young girls inside a womens locker room, according to a group of concerned parents.

#20 All over America, liberal commentators are now suggesting that football has become too violent and too dangerous and that it needs to be substantially toned down. In fact, one liberal columnist for the Boston Globe is even proposing that football should be banned for anyone under the age of 14.

Link:

20 Outrageous Examples That Show How Political Correctness …

The Phony Debate About Political Correctness – ThinkProgress

In 1991, New York Magazine published an influential cover story, titled Are You Politically Correct? The headline was splashed across the glossys front page in bold red and white letters, followed by a list of supposed politically correct questions:

The article opened with what appeared to be a heated exchange between students and a Harvard professor, Stephan Thernstrom, as he made his way through campus. As John Taylor, the author of the piece told it, Thernstrom was anonymously criticized by students in the Harvard Crimson for racial insensitivity in an introductory history course he taught on race relations in America. As word of the criticism spread throughout campus, Thernstrom quickly found himself embroiled in controversyand the target of an angry group of students. The first paragraph describes Thernstroms reaction in vivid detail:

Racist Racist! The man is a racist! Such denunciations, hissed in tones of self-righteousness and contempt, vicious and vengeful, furious, smoking with hatredsuch denunciations haunted Stephen Thernstrom for weeks It was hellish, this persecution. Thernstrom couldnt sleep. His nerves were frayed, his temper raw.

Taylors opening certainly painted a dramatic picture. But there was only one problemit wasnt exactly true. In a 1991 interview with The Nation, Thernstrom himself told reporter Jon Weiner that he was appalled when he first saw the passage. Nothing like that ever happened, he quipped, describing the authors excerpt as artistic license. What eventually happened was perhaps unsurprising: Thernstrom decided not to offer the controversial course again. Although it was a voluntary decision, the professors story soon turned into a famous example of the tyranny of political correctness. The New Republic declared that the professor had been savaged for political correctness in the classroom; the New York Review of Books described his case an illustration of the attack on freedom led by minorities.

These claims ultimately proved to be greatly exaggerated. Weiner tracked down one of the students who complained about Thernstrom; she explained that their goals werent to prevent him from offering the class, but to point out inaccuracies in his lecture. To me, its a big overreaction for him to decide not to teach the course again because of that, she said. A professor of government at Harvard went a step further, concluding that there is no Thernstrom case. Instead, a few student complaints were exaggerated and translated into an attack on freedom of speech by black students. The professor called the episode a marvelous example of the skill of the neocons at taking small events and translating them into weapons against the pluralistic thrust on American campuses.

Back in the 90s, the conversation around political correctness was largely driven by anecdote that could easily be distorted to support a particular point of view. Last year, the same magazine that published Taylors 1991 story returned to the topic, this time publishing a treatise on political correctness by Jonathan Chait. The piece, Not a Very P.C. Thing to Say, describes a resurgence of the P.C. culture that flourished on college campuses in the 90s, even more ubiquitous now thanks to the rise of Twitter and social media. This new movement of political correctness, Chait argues, has assumed a towering presence in the psychic space of politically active people in general and the left in particular. He describes it as: a system of left-wing ideological repression that is antithetical to liberalism itself. P.C. ideology can be seductive to some liberals who can be misled into thinking that this is liberalism, Chait told ThinkProgress. And I think we need to understand that its not.

Its a depiction thats made its way outside of coastal media commentary to rhetoric on the campaign trail. Criticism of the illiberal strain of political correctness has found an eager audience among a range of GOP presidential hopefuls, many of whom readily invoke P.C. as a leftist bogeyman. At a recent Republican Jewish Coalition Conference, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) declared that the politically correct doublespeak from this administration has gone beyond ridiculous.

Cruzs proclamations coincide with a string of recent student protests denouncing institutional racism on college campuses throughout the country. At Yale and Georgetown, students have asked that buildings named after white supremacists and slaveowners be renamed. At Claremont-McKenna College in California, the dean of students resigned after students criticized her response to complaints of racism on campus, and at the University of Missouri, the president resigned from his position after failing to respond to several racist acts against students, including an incident where a student drew a swastika with feces in a university bathroom.

There have also been recent student protests at Amherst, Brandeis, Harvard, Princeton, Dartmouth, and Ithaca College, among others.

The protests have earned plaudits and harsh condemnation. The Atlantic denounced The New Intolerance of Student Activism. On Fox News, Alan Dershowitz claimed that a fog of fascism is descending quickly over many American universities It is the worst kind of hypocrisy. The National Review argued that the notion that students need a safe space is a lie. They arent weak. They dont need protection Why would they debate when theyve proven they can dictate terms? Pathetic.

Others, meanwhile, are quick to point out that these angry responses often come from people who hold more institutional power than the students they critique. Marilyn Edelstein, a professor of English at Santa Clara University who wrote about political correctness in the 90s, said shes been troubled by commentators impulse to dismiss important ideas and and perspectives as simply politically correct.

I think whats going on today is a resurgence of the same kind of fear by privileged white men that other people might have different experiences and legitimate grievances about the way theyre often treated, she explained. A lot of the commentators who are crying, oh political correctness now again are not at risk of actually losing any power. Conservatives are controlling the Congress and Senate and a lot of state houses, and yet they want to mock 18 to 22 year-olds for caring about things like their own experiences of being excluded or made to feel like less-than-welcome members of a college community.

If theres one thing these two camps can agree on, its that censorship does exist on college campuses. But according to those who track incidents of censorship most closely, its impacting students and faculty across the ideological spectrum. Acknowledging the true nature of repression on college campuses is complex and does not neatly fit the narrative of P.C.s detractors, but it shouldnt be ignored. Absent a discussion rooted in reality, we appear condemned to repeat fruitless debate of the 90s.

In The Coddling of the American Mind, a cover story published last year in The Atlantic, Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt examine the climate of censorship and political correctness on college campuses. Something strange is happening at Americas colleges and universities, they begin ominously. A movement is arising, undirected and driven largely by students, to scrub campuses clean of words, ideas, and subjects that might cause discomfort or give offense.

Lukianoff and Haidt describe a number of incidents intended to demonstrate the surge of censorship on college campus. They distinguish the climate on campuses today from that of the 90s, arguing that the current movement is centered around emotional well-being. More than the last, it presumes an extraordinary fragility of the collegiate psyche, and therefore elevates the goal of protecting students from psychological harm.

The authors cite real examples of suppression on campuses, but they blame the rush to censor on students apparent aversion to uncomfortable words and ideas. The ultimate aim, it seems, is to turn campuses into safe spaces where young adults are shielded from words and ideas that make some uncomfortable, they conclude. And more than the last, this movement seeks to punish anyone who interferes with that aim, even accidentally. You might call this impulse vindictive protectiveness. It is creating a culture in which everyone must think twice before speaking up, lest they face charges of insensitivity, aggression, or worse.

This narrative positions censorship as the product of students who seek comfort, coddling, and refuge from challenging ideas. But John K. Wilson, an editor at The Academe Blog and author of the book The Myth of Political Correctness: The Conservative Attack on Higher Education, says that a significant portion of the criticism aimed at students is misguided. Commentators focus on student calls for censorship often ignores the growth of the administrative class, which can have just as profound consequences on speech.

I think that where there is a lot of efforts of repression going on its coming mostly from the administration, Wilson explained. One of the changes that has come about in the structure of higher education in recent decades is you have a dramatic growth in administration. And so you have more and more people whose sort of job is to work for the administration and in many cases suppress controversial activity.

Wilsons point is backed up by the data. The New England Center for Investigative Reporting found that the number of administrative employees at U.S. colleges and universities has more than doubled in the past 25 years. Moreover, the expansion of the administrative class comes as colleges and universities cut full-time tenured faculty positions. According to an in-depth article by Benjamin Ginsberg in the Washington Monthly, between 1998 and 2008, private colleges increased spending on instruction by 22 percent, but hiked spending on administrative and staff support by 36 percent.

Will Creeley, the vice president of legal and public advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), explained that the growth of college administration has resulted in the creation of new fiefdoms for administrators that previously did not exist. In order to justify their existence, those administrators will occasionally make themselves known by investigating and punishing speech that at public universities is protected by the first amendment or at private universities should be protected by the promises that the university makes about free speech.

As the campus administration expands, there is no doubt that some conservative-leaning voices on university campuses have been censored. Earlier this year, a libertarian student group at Dixie University was blocked from putting up flyers on campus that mocked President Obama, Che Guevara, and former President George W. Bush. At Saint Louis University in 2013, a group of College Republicans was barred from inviting former senator Scott Brown (R-MA) to speak at a campus event over concerns it would jeopardize the schools tax-exempt status. In 2014, the Young Americans for Liberty student group at Boise State University was charged nearly $500 in security fees for a gun-rights event featuring Dick Heller of the Supreme Court guns-rights case D.C. v. Heller.

Then there are examples of suppressed speech deemed hateful or offensive, such as the University of South Carolinas suspension of a student who used a racial slur and the suspension of a student at Texas Christian University for tweets about hoodrat criminals in Baltimore. These instances are where questions involving censorship become more nuanced. For many, the line of acceptable, or even free speech, ends where hate speech begins. The definition of silencing, after all, depends on who you ask. To some, censorship comes in the form of tearing down a xenophobic poster; to others, its the impulse to equate student activism with the desire to be coddled.

But how do you define hate speech? Free speech absolutists say censorship is never the answer to constitutionally protected hate speech, no matter how offensive it may be. There is no legal definition of hate speech that will withstand constitutional scrutiny, Creeley pointed out. The Supreme Court has been clear on this for decades. And that is because of the inherently fluid, subjective boundaries of what would or would not constitute hate speech. One persons hate speech is another persons manifesto. Any attempt to define hate speech will find itself punishing those with minority viewpoints.

Liberals can, and have, gone too far in their calls for suppressing hateful speech. But the excesses of whats been deemed political correctness are not representative of the culture writ large, nor do they signify a broad leftist conspiracy to silence any and all dissenting voices. The reality of censorship on college campuses is more complicatedand less useful to the most vocal critics of political correctness. Left-leaning voices are censored, toothey just rarely seem to provoke the same amount of public outrage and hand-wringing.

When it comes to repression on college campuses, theres really no evidence that theres some left-wing, politically correct attack on freedom of speech, Wilson said. In fact, there are many examples of efforts to repress left-wing speakers and left-wing faculty. Most of the attacks on academic freedom, he explained, especially the effective attacks, come from the right.

You dont have to look far to find examples. Just last week, a professor at Wheaton College in Illinois was fired for claiming that Christians and Muslims worship the same God. Last month, George Washington University barred a student from hanging a Palestinian flag outside his bedroom window. In November, the Huffington Post reported that Missouri state Sen. Kurt Schaefer (R-Columbia) attempted to block a graduate student at the University of Missouri from performing research on the impact of abortion restrictions. At the University of South Carolina in 2014, a performance called How to Become a Lesbian in 10 Days was canceled after state legislators expressed concern that it would promote perversion. A professor at the University of Kansas was suspended in 2013 for anti-NRA comments. At the University of Arizona, a professor was fired for conducting research on the effects of marijuana for veterans with PTSD. In 2015, a vegan rights activist at California State Polytechnic University was prevented from handing out flyers about animal abuse on campus. In 2014, campus police blocked students at the University of Toledo from peacefully protesting a lecture by Karl Rove. The same year, adjunct faculty members at St. Charles Community College in St. Louis attempting to unionize were prohibited from gathering petition signatures.

Still, these cases havent really become widely cited or popular talking points. Wilson says thats because conservatives have been more effective at advancing their narrative. The left isnt really organized to tell the stories of oppression on campus and to try to defend students and faculty who face these kind of attacks, he explained. They need the institutional structure out there, organizations that are going to talk about the issues that will counter this media narrative of political correctness thats been around for 25 years now.

Hundreds of years before political correctness made its debut in thinkpieces or the fiery rhetoric of presidential candidates, it appeared in an opinion written by Justice James Wilson in the 1793 Supreme Court case, Chisholm v. Virginia, which upheld the rights of people to sue states. Arguing that people, rather than states, hold the most authority in the country, Wilson claimed that a toast given to the United States was not politically correct. The Justice used the term literally in this context; he felt it was more accurate to use People of the United States.

The states, rather than the people, for whose sakes the states exist, are frequently the objects which attract and arrest our principal attention. This, I believe, has produced much of the confusion and perplexity which have appeared in several proceedings and several publications on state politics, and on the politics, too, of the United states. Sentiments and expressions of this inaccurate kind prevail in our common, even in our convivial, language. Is a toast asked? The United states, instead of the People of the United states, is the toast given. This is not politically correct.

The Chisholm decision was ultimately overturned and Justice Wilsons phrase slipped into obscurity. Its hard to pinpoint exactly when the expression made a comeback, but, as John K. Wilson outlines in his book, The Myth of Political Correctness, it was mainly used jokingly among liberals in the twentieth century to criticize the excesses and dogma of their own belief system. Professor Roger Geiger wrote that it was a sarcastic reference to adherence to the party line by American communists in the 1930s. Conservatives began to subvert that framing in the 1980s and use it for their own political gain, eventually transforming the term politically correct to political correctness. The latter phrase was used to describe not just a few radical individuals, as politically correct was, but an entire conspiracy of leftists infiltrating the higher education system.

This narrative gained mainstream visibility in the 1990s, but it hadnt come out of the blue. Fears about the radicalization of American universities had been brewing for years. The attacks on colleges and universities that propelled it had been organizing for more than a decade, Wilson wrote. For the conservatives, the 1960s were a frightening period on American campuses; students occupied buildings, faculty mixed radical politics into their classes, administrators acquiesced to their standards, and academic standards fell by the wayside. Conservatives convinced themselves that the 1960s had never ended and that academia was being corrupted by a new generation of tenured radicals.

These concerns eventually found a home in the conservative commentary of the 1980s, of which Wilson provides several examples: A 1983 article in Conservative Digest claiming a Marxist network doling out the heaviest dose of Marxist and leftist propaganda to students had over 13,000 faculty members, a Marxist press that is selling record numbers of radical textbooks and supplementary materials, and a system of helping other Marxist professors receive tenure; philosopher Sidney Hooks proclamation in 1987 that there is less freedom of speech on American campuses today, measured by the tolerance of dissenting views on controversial political issues, than at any other recent period in peacetime in American history; and Secretary of Education William Bennetts assertion in 1988 that some places on campus are becoming increasingly insular and in certain instances even repressive of the spirit of the free marketplace of ideas.

The media soon latched onto this narrative. Many of the articles published were almost uniformly critical of the Left and accepted the conservatives attacks without questioning their accuracy or motives, Wilson wrote. By using a few anecdotes about a few elite universities, conservatives created political correctness in the eyes of the media, and in herdlike fashion journalists raced to condemn the politically correct mob they had discovered in American universities.

Fast-forward 25 years and not much has changed. Back in the 90s, the P.C. buzzwords were speech codes and multiculturalism; now, theyre trigger warnings and microaggressions. Whether or not you agree with microaggressions and trigger warnings, they dont constitute an existential threat to free speech. Just because a person finds them frivolous or unnecessary doesnt mean theyre censorious.

The term microaggression, for example, is often used to highlight subtle biases and prejudices. The point is to open up a dialogue, not to censor students. Nevertheless, microaggressions and trigger warnings are often used as examples of campus illiberalism. Chait wrote that these newly fashionable terms merely repackage a central tenet of the first P.C. movement: that people should be expected to treat even faintly unpleasant ideas or behaviors as full-scale offenses.

But is there any evidence that the P.C. movement on campuses has gotten worse, or even exists at all? We asked Chait how and why he determined that political correctness, once again, was an issue worthy of exploration. He didnt offer any concrete examples. The idea for the story came from my editors, who noticed it, he replied. When I started to research the issue thats when I started to see something happening on campus that at the time wasnt getting that much attention. Now, in the months since, people are starting to pay attention. But I think its happening much more often.

Wilson offered a different take. I dont think theres really a crisis of any kind like this. Things are not that much different than they have been in the past. You have professors who get fired for expressing controversial views on Twitter, you dont have professors getting fired for microaggressions or for failing to give a trigger warning, he said, referring to the Steven Salaita casea professor at the University of Illinois who lost a promised tenured position over tweets that were critical of Israels invasion of Gaza in 2014.

Creeley did say that FIRE has seen an increase in case submissions, but he noted that isnt necessarily an accurate gauge of how much censorship is occurring on campus. He did point out that calls for speech limitations appear to be coming increasingly from students, a trend he described as new and worrying. He added that there seem to be a worrying number of instances where students are asking the authorities to sanction or punish speech that they disagree with, or to implement some kind of training on folks to change viewpoints they disagree with.

But if people who criticize these efforts are genuinely concerned about censorship, they should also worry when it comes from other sides of the political aislenot just when it neatly fits into a caricature of campus liberalism run amok. Creeley said that FIRE was disappointed to find that the case of Hayden Barnes, an environmentalist who was expelled from college for posting a collage against a proposed parking garage online, didnt take off in the media the way that other explicitly partisan cases did. It did not capture the sense of where those kinds of efforts to censor those types of students came from, he said. Its disappointing to me to see free speech be cast in partisan terms because I think that it turns the issue into a much more binary, much less nuanced, and much less thoughtful discussion.

The Missouri state senators proposal to block a students dissertation on the impact of abortion restrictions, for example, would appear to be just the kind of case that raises the ire of free speech proponents. But it doesnt appear to have gained much attention beyond coverage from a few predictably left-leaning sites. Furthermore, neither Chaits nor Haidt and Lukianoffs pieces mention the Salaita case, despite evidence suggesting punitive measures, including administrative sanctions and censorship, have been taken against Palestinian rights activists. A recent report from Palestine Legal and the Center for Constitutional Rights detailed more than 150 incidents of censorship and suppression of Palestinian advocacy in 2014 alone; 89 percent of which targeted students and facultycausing speculation about a Palestine exception to the free speech debate.

ThinkProgress asked Chait about how censorship driven from the right fits into his analysis of political correctness as the province of progressives. I think thats a separate issue than the phenomenon Im describing, he answered. If you look at my original piece, very few of the examples are formal censorship. I think youve got something much deeper which is a bigger problem for people on the left, which is a broken way of arising at truth on race and gender issues. That can happen and does happen in non-censorship ways.

It doesnt take a thorough examination of the medias framing of political correctness to realize that the conversation is fraught and prone to exaggeration. Thats partially due to a lack of research on the topic. Because theres not much data available, anecdotes are often elevated as evidence; people choose the sides that best confirm their preexisting political biases and worldviews. So how does political correctness actually impact creativity? A team of researchers decided to put this question to the test with hundreds of college students.

The researchers randomly divided students in groups of three and asked them to brainstorm ideas for new businesses that could go into a vacant restaurant space on campus. Groups were either all men, all women, or mixed. The control was allowed to start brainstorming ideas immediately, but the test group was asked to take ten minutes to think of examples of political correctness on the college campus. Cornells Jack Goncalo, one of the studys researchers, told ThinkProgress that the primer was their way of making P.C. salient to students in the test group. The control group wasnt asked to talk about P.C., so it wasnt on their minds.

Researchers wanted to challenge the assumption that an anarchy approach to creativity is sort of the only way to go or even the best way to go, Goncalo said. Our argument was that although P.C. is dismissed as being overly controlling and sort of the conservative view is that P.C. is a threat to free speech, we actually predicted that P.C. would provide a framework that would help people understand what the expectations are in a mixed-sex group and would reduce uncertainty. And by reducing uncertainty it would actually make people more comfortable to share a wide range of ideas.

Indeed, the researchers found that the mixed-sex groups instructed to think about political correctness generated more ideas and were more creative than the diverse groups that hadnt received the P.C. primer. But that didnt hold true for the same-sex groups. Groups of all men or all women that were told to think about political correctness ended up being less creative than the control group.

Goncalo said those results suggested that talking about political correctness actually reduced uncertainty among mixed-sex groups, making it easier for men and women to speak up and share their ideas. For diverse groups, P.C. can be a creativity booster.

Until the uncertainty caused by demographic differences can be overcome within diverse groups, the effort to be P.C. can be justified not merely on moral grounds, but also by the practical and potentially profitable consequences of facilitating the exchange of creative ideas, the study concludes.

Unfortunately, there arent many scientific papers on the topic of political correctness. The researchers study appears to be the only one that looks specifically at political correctness, creativity, and group activity. And even then, it wasnt easy to get their research published.

It was an uphill battle, Goncalo said. A lot of academics see the whole term political correctness as a colloquial non-scientific, non-academic thing. We had to push really hard to say this is a legitimate thing. It took the team nine years to publish the reportand when it eventually came out, there was push-back. I got emails from angry people who were really pissed off and actually hadnt read the paper or understood what we did or what found, Goncalo remarked. Just knee-jerk reactions to the whole thing. So it was polarizing as you might expect.

To be sure, their paper is just one study on a topic with limited scientific research. But its conclusions shouldnt be ignored; it raises worthwhile points about the impact of speech constraints and communication among diverse groups. After all, the ongoing conversation about P.C. often relies on anecdotal evidence rather than data. This is part of the reason its subject to such vigorous debatepeople like to tailor the evidence to their worldview, not vice versa.

Goncalo also came to an interesting conclusion about the value assigned to political correctness throughout the course of the study, which took nine years to publish. Were exactly where we were in the 80s and 90s, he noted. And I think what that says is that the word is still meaningful and people are still using it in the same way.

For all of the commentary about campus activism and political correctness, theres one group we rarely hear from: actual college students. ThinkProgress visited students at American University to learn about their impressions of the political correctness conversation taking place. Although the responses were from just a sampling of college students, they were telling.

Students at American University overwhelmingly told ThinkProgress they didnt find political correctness to be a pressing campus problem. Only one student we spoke to equated P.C. with censorship, while the rest of the students we spoke with seemed more concerned about hate speech and racist comments posted in online forums. The students quoted below preferred to be identified by their first names.

Azza, a senior at American University, said that much of the commentary aimed at critiquing political correctness fails to understand the experience of being a minority student on campus. Students of minority backgrounds deal with certain issues, they face certain issues, there are things that affect them differently, and when you enter a learning environment that is hostile towards you, you cant learn, she explained. People who are saying that this is suppressing free speech or that people want to be coddled are actually not at all concerned about free speech. The vast majority of people are concerned with a particular type of discourse being fostered on American universities that reflects their particular understanding of American life and society and values.

Azza used the suppression of Palestinian activism on campuses as an example: No one in these groups who are so supposedly concerned with free speech has said anything about that, because they dont actually care about free speech, she remarked. If they did, theyd be speaking on behalf of Palestinian students. What they care about is just not letting minority voices dominate the discourse by trying to get university administrators to create an environment thats safer.

Mackenzie, a senior at AU who was sitting near Azza in a student cafe, added: Just because [the conversation] is different from when [critics] were in college doesnt mean its wrong and that were being babied. We dont want to be babied, its not that. Were fighting for something that is right.

Other students told ThinkProgress they were unsatisfied with the administrations response to offensive messages posted on Yik Yak, an online platform where students have been known to anonymously post racist content. One of the biggest things thats been going around is the racist speech on Yik Yak, and how as an anonymous platform to spread information about other people its been used to threaten and scare students and make certain students feel unsafe, another student, who did not share her name, explained. Hate speech is not free speech. Once that the language that you use infringes on another students ability to feel safe on campus and to feel that theyre allowed to come to class without feeling threatened, that isnt free speech because youre taking someone elses rights away.

Marlise, a junior at AU, said she has encountered students who abuse the system. They use the trigger warnings if they dont want to hear the other side of things, or if they dont agree with something. I think that people on the outside appear to stand in solidarity with Mizzou but theres always going to be those people that say I dont want to hear the other side. Still, she agreed that the content posted on Yik Yak is a big issue.

Students also said that criticisms of political correctness are often underpinned by racial insensitivities on campus. Jendelly, a sophomore at AU of Dominican descent, said she feels as though there is a racially divided hierarchy on campus. My dad works for the county and he works alongside the mayor, she said. And a lot of people who hold those high positions in our town are white. But theyve never made us feel like were second to them or were three-quarters of a person. Coming here, in this school, I do feel like were placed in a hierarchy. And I feel like when I see a white person its like, oh I have to step up my game to reach their level. And I shouldnt have to feel like that.

Its unclear what the multi-decade debate over political correctness has accomplished in aggregate. But there is one group of people who find it incredibly useful: Republican politicians.The use of the term political correctness, particularly in the Republican presidential primary, does not have a specific definition. Rather it functions like a swiss army knifeit is the answer to every kind of issue that a candidate might confront. Its a get out of jail free card for bigotry, sexism and lying.When Fox News Megyn Kelly confronted Donald Trump in an August GOP debate with a litany of sexist attacks he made against women, he had a ready answer. I think the big problem this country has is being politically correct. Ive been challenged by so many people, and I dont frankly have time for total political correctness. And to be honest with you, this country doesnt have time either, Trump said. The audience applauded.

Trump loves to rail against political correctness on Twitter. He argues that our country has become so politically correct that it has lost all sense of direction or purpose. For example, he is not able to use the word thug without criticism.Ted Cruz goes a step further. Political correctness is killing us, he argued during a Republican debate in December. On his website, Cruz blames political correctness for 9/11.Cruz also finds political correctness useful for collecting email addresses.Ben Carson tweeted that we should #StoPP funding political correctness and PlannedParenthood. What does funding for Planned Parenthood have to do with political correctness? He doesnt really explain, except to say that political correctness is making us amoral.

.@RealBenCarson: Were gradually giving away the morals & values that made us into a great nation for the sake of political correctness.

Fox News (@FoxNews) July 29, 2015

Carson also uses political correctness to justify his opposition to Obamacare and accepting Syrian refugees.

Confronted with criticism for saying that a Muslim should not be presidenta religious test that would violate the constitutionCarson replied that political correctness is ruining our country.

Why are these candidates so quick to point out instances of political correctness? Like a lot of things politicians talk about, it polls very well. A recent poll found that 68 percent of Americans, and 81 percent of Republicans agreed that A big problem this country has is being politically correct. Even among Democrats, 62 percent agreed.

Poll numbers like these have a snowball effect. The more popular the message, the more politicians will talk about it or use it as a way to divert the conversation away from more troublesome topics. The more politicians talk about political correctness, the more Americans will believe its a big problem. Rinse and repeat.Is Chait, a liberal who regularly blasts Republican candidates as extreme and incompetent, concerned that political correctness has been co-opted to justify the ugliest aspects of American political life? Not really.I think its always been misused by conservatives [liberals should] ignore the way that conservatives talk about this phenomenon, completely. And lets just have a debate among people who are left of center Conservatives are trying to interject themselves into it, Chait said.This might be what Chait prefers but, on a practical level, the far-right has captured the bulk of the conversation about political correctness. Articles by Chait, while purportedly for the left, are promoted voraciously by the right to bolster the argument about political correctness on their terms, not his.

While the exploitation of the term political correctness by Republicans is, on the surface, problematic for liberals, it also serves an important function. Many people on the left prefer to think of themselves as open-minded and not captured by a particular political party or ideology. But over the past several years, the Republican party has tacked hard right. The policies embraced by Republicansincluding a harsh crackdown on immigrants, massive tax cuts for the wealthy and the destruction of critical environmental protectionshave left little substantive common ground with liberals.By embracing criticisms of political correctness, liberal commentators are able to do something that is somewhat ideologically unexpected, while avoiding embracing substantive policies they might find intensely destructive. Its a painless way to demonstrate intellectual independence.Bill Maher, a self-described liberal firebrand with his own show on HBO, has touted himself as politically incorrect for years. It makes his show more appealing to a broader audience and allows him an easy way to respond to charges of racism, sexism and other controversies that have plagued his career.

Concluding his piece in New York Magazine, Chait claims that the P.C. style of politics has one serious, fatal drawback: It is exhausting. There is certainly some truth to this. But the debate about political correctness is just as exhausting: Thirty years later, weve broken no new ground.

At its core, the P.C. debate is about something meaningful. It is a discussion about how people should treat each other. The language we use to define it may change, but the conversation will keep going. Still, after more than three decades of repeating the same arguments, perhaps its time to recognize that the current iteration of this discussion has run its course.

A new debate could rely less on anecdote and more on actual data. It could be less about protecting rhetorical preferences and more about prohibiting actual censorship. It could dispense with political grandstanding and become more grounded in reality, without the apocalyptic and shallow narratives.

The end of the phony debate about political correctness will not be the end of the debate about political correctness. But it could be the beginning of something better.

Continue reading here:

The Phony Debate About Political Correctness – ThinkProgress

Political correctness – Wikipedia

This article is about political correctness. For other uses of “PC” or “P.C.”, see PC (disambiguation).

The term political correctness (adjectivally: politically correct; commonly abbreviated PC) is used to describe language, policies, or measures that are intended to avoid offense or disadvantage to members of particular groups in society.[1][2][3][4][5] Since the late 1980s, the term has come to refer to avoiding language or behavior that can be seen as excluding, marginalizing, or insulting groups of people considered disadvantaged or discriminated against, especially groups defined by sex or race. In public discourse and the media, it is generally used as a pejorative, implying that these policies are excessive or unwarranted.[6][3][7][8][9][10][11]

While earlier usage of the term referred to the strict adherence to political orthodoxy, the contemporary pejorative usage of the term emerged from conservative criticism of the New Left in the late 20th century. This usage was popularized by a number of articles in The New York Times and other media throughout the 1990s,[12][13][14][15][16][17] and was widely used in the debate about Allan Bloom’s 1987 book The Closing of the American Mind,[7][9][18][19] and gained further currency in response to Roger Kimball’s Tenured Radicals (1990),[7][9][20][21] and conservative author Dinesh D’Souza’s 1991 book Illiberal Education, in which he condemned what he saw as liberal efforts to advance self-victimization and multiculturalism through language, affirmative action, and changes to the content of school and university curricula.[7][8][20][22]

Commentators on the political left contend that conservatives use the concept of political correctness to downplay and divert attention from substantively discriminatory behavior against disadvantaged groups.[20][23][24] They also argue that the political right enforces its own forms of political correctness to suppress criticism of its favored constituencies and ideologies.[25][26][27] In the United States the term has played a major role in the ‘culture war’ between liberals and conservatives.[28]

The term “politically correct” was used infrequently until the latter part of the 20th century. This earlier use did not communicate the social disapproval usually implied in more recent usage. In 1793, the term “politically correct” appeared in a U.S. Supreme Court judgment of a political lawsuit.[29] The term also had use in other English-speaking countries in the 1800s.[30] William Safire states that the first recorded use of the term in the typical modern sense is by Toni Cade Bambara in the 1970 anthology The Black Woman.[31] The term probably entered use in the United Kingdom around 1975.[11][clarification needed]

In the early-to-mid 20th century, the phrase “politically correct” was used to describe strict adherence to a range of ideological orthodoxies. In 1934, The New York Times reported that Nazi Germany was granting reporting permits “only to pure ‘Aryans’ whose opinions are politically correct.”[2]

As Marxist-Leninist movements gained political power, the phrase came to be associated with accusations of dogmatic application of doctrine, in debates between American Communists and American Socialists. This usage referred to the Communist party line which, in the eyes of the Socialists, provided “correct” positions on all political matters. According to American educator Herbert Kohl, writing about debates in New York in the late 1940s and early 1950s,

The term “politically correct” was used disparagingly, to refer to someone whose loyalty to the CP line overrode compassion, and led to bad politics. It was used by Socialists against Communists, and was meant to separate out Socialists who believed in egalitarian moral ideas from dogmatic Communists who would advocate and defend party positions regardless of their moral substance.

In the 1970s, the American New Left began using the term “politically correct”.[32] In the essay The Black Woman: An Anthology (1970), Toni Cade Bambara said that “a man cannot be politically correct and a [male] chauvinist, too.” Thereafter, the term was often used as self-critical satire. Debra L. Shultz said that “throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the New Left, feminists, and progressives… used their term ‘politically correct’ ironically, as a guard against their own orthodoxy in social change efforts.”[7][32][33] PC is used in the comic book Merton of the Movement, by Bobby London, which was followed by the term ideologically sound, in the comic strips of Bart Dickon.[32][34] In her essay “Toward a feminist Revolution” (1992) Ellen Willis said: “In the early eighties, when feminists used the term ‘political correctness’, it was used to refer sarcastically to the anti-pornography movement’s efforts to define a ‘feminist sexuality’.”[35]

Stuart Hall suggests one way in which the original use of the term may have developed into the modern one:

According to one version, political correctness actually began as an in-joke on the left: radical students on American campuses acting out an ironic replay of the Bad Old Days BS (Before the Sixties) when every revolutionary groupuscule had a party line about everything. They would address some glaring examples of sexist or racist behaviour by their fellow students in imitation of the tone of voice of the Red Guards or Cultural Revolution Commissar: “Not very ‘politically correct’, Comrade!”[36]

Allan Bloom’s 1987 book The Closing of the American Mind[18] heralded a debate about “political correctness” in American higher education in the 1980s and 1990s.[7][9][19][37] Professor of English literary and cultural studies at CMU Jeffrey J. Williams wrote that the “assault on … political correctness that simmered through the Reagan years, gained bestsellerdom with Bloom’s Closing of the American Mind.” [38] According to Z.F. Gamson, Bloom’s book “attacked the faculty for ‘political correctness’.”[39] Prof. of Social Work at CSU Tony Platt says the “campaign against ‘political correctness'” was launched by Bloom’s book in 1987.[40]

An October 1990 New York Times article by Richard Bernstein is credited with popularizing the term.[14][16][17][41][42] At this time, the term was mainly being used within academia: “Across the country the term p.c., as it is commonly abbreviated, is being heard more and more in debates over what should be taught at the universities”.[12] Nexis citations in “arcnews/curnews” reveal only seventy total citations in articles to “political correctness” for 1990; but one year later, Nexis records 1,532 citations, with a steady increase to more than 7,000 citations by 1994.[41][43] In May 1991, The New York Times had a follow-up article, according to which the term was increasingly being used in a wider public arena:

What has come to be called “political correctness,” a term that began to gain currency at the start of the academic year last fall, has spread in recent months and has become the focus of an angry national debate, mainly on campuses, but also in the larger arenas of American life.

The previously obscure far-left term became common currency in the lexicon of the conservative social and political challenges against progressive teaching methods and curriculum changes in the secondary schools and universities of the U.S.[8][44] Policies, behavior, and speech codes that the speaker or the writer regarded as being the imposition of a liberal orthodoxy, were described and criticized as “politically correct”.[20] In May 1991, at a commencement ceremony for a graduating class of the University of Michigan, then U.S. President George H.W. Bush used the term in his speech: “The notion of political correctness has ignited controversy across the land. And although the movement arises from the laudable desire to sweep away the debris of racism and sexism and hatred, it replaces old prejudice with new ones. It declares certain topics off-limits, certain expression off-limits, even certain gestures off-limits.”[45]

After 1991, its use as a pejorative phrase became widespread amongst conservatives in the US.[8] It became a key term encapsulating conservative concerns about the left in culture and political debate more broadly, as well as in academia. Two articles on the topic in late 1990 in Forbes and Newsweek both used the term “thought police” in their headlines, exemplifying the tone of the new usage, but it was Dinesh D’Souza’s Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus (1991) which “captured the press’s imagination.”[8] Similar critical terminology was used by D’Souza for a range of policies in academia around victimization, supporting multiculturalism through affirmative action, sanctions against anti-minority hate speech, and revising curricula (sometimes referred to as “canon busting”).[8][46][not in citation given] These trends were at least in part a response to multiculturalism and the rise of identity politics, with movements such as feminism, gay rights movements and ethnic minority movements. That response received funding from conservative foundations and think tanks such as the John M. Olin Foundation, which funded several books such as D’Souza’s.[7][20]

Herbert Kohl, in 1992, commented that a number of neoconservatives who promoted the use of the term “politically correct” in the early 1990s were former Communist Party members, and, as a result, familiar with the Marxist use of the phrase. He argued that in doing so, they intended “to insinuate that egalitarian democratic ideas are actually authoritarian, orthodox and Communist-influenced, when they oppose the right of people to be racist, sexist, and homophobic.”[3]

During the 1990s, conservative and right-wing politicians, think-tanks, and speakers adopted the phrase as a pejorative descriptor of their ideological enemies especially in the context of the Culture Wars about language and the content of public-school curricula. Roger Kimball, in Tenured Radicals, endorsed Frederick Crews’s view that PC is best described as “Left Eclecticism”, a term defined by Kimball as “any of a wide variety of anti-establishment modes of thought from structuralism and poststructuralism, deconstruction, and Lacanian analyst to feminist, homosexual, black, and other patently political forms of criticism.”[21][38]

Liberal commentators have argued that the conservatives and reactionaries who used the term did so in effort to divert political discussion away from the substantive matters of resolving societal discrimination such as racial, social class, gender, and legal inequality against people whom conservatives do not consider part of the social mainstream.[7][23][47] Jan Narveson wrote that “that phrase was born to live between scare-quotes: it suggests that the operative considerations in the area so called are merely political, steamrolling the genuine reasons of principle for which we ought to be acting…”[6] Commenting in 2001, one such British journalist,[48][49] Polly Toynbee, said “the phrase is an empty, right-wing smear, designed only to elevate its user”, and, in 2010, “the phrase ‘political correctness’ was born as a coded cover for all who still want to say Paki, spastic, or queer”.[50] Another British journalist, Will Hutton,[51] wrote in 2001:

Political correctness is one of the brilliant tools that the American Right developed in the mid1980s, as part of its demolition of American liberalism…. What the sharpest thinkers on the American Right saw quickly was that by declaring war on the cultural manifestations of liberalism by levelling the charge of “political correctness” against its exponents they could discredit the whole political project.

“Words Really are Important, Mr Blunkett” Will Hutton, 2001

Glenn Loury wrote in 1994 that: “to address the subject of “political correctness” when power and authority within the academic community is being contested by parties on either side of that issue, is to invite scrutiny of one’s arguments by would-be “friends” and “enemies.” Combatants from the left and the right will try to assess whether a writer is “for them” or “against them.”[52][check quotation syntax]

In the US, the term has been widely used in books and journals, but in Britain, usage has been confined mainly to the popular press.[53] Many such authors and popular-media figures, particularly on the right, have used the term to criticize what they see as bias in the media.[6][20] William McGowan argues that journalists get stories wrong or ignore stories worthy of coverage, because of what McGowan perceives to be their liberal ideologies and their fear of offending minority groups.[54] Robert Novak, in his essay “Political Correctness Has No Place in the Newsroom”, used the term to blame newspapers for adopting language use policies that he thinks tend to excessively avoid the appearance of bias. He argued that political correctness in language not only destroys meaning but also demeans the people who are meant to be protected.[55] Authors David Sloan and Emily Hoff claim that in the US, journalists shrug off concerns about political correctness in the newsroom, equating the political correctness criticisms with the old “liberal media bias” label.[56]

Much of the modern debate on the term was sparked by conservative critiques of liberal bias in academia and education,[7] and conservatives have used it as a major line of attack since.[8]University of Pennsylvania professor Alan Charles Kors and lawyer Harvey A. Silverglate connect speech codes in US universities to philosopher Herbert Marcuse. They claim that speech codes create a “climate of repression”, arguing that they are based on “Marcusean logic”. The speech codes, “mandate a redefined notion of “freedom”, based on the belief that the imposition of a moral agenda on a community is justified”, a view which, “requires less emphasis on individual rights and more on assuring “historically oppressed” persons the means of achieving equal rights.”[57] Kors and Silverglate later established the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), which campaigns against infringement of rights of due process, in particular “speech codes”.[58][unreliable source?] Similarly, a common conservative criticism of higher education in the United States is that the political views of the faculty are much more liberal than the general population, and that this situation contributes to an atmosphere of political correctness.[59]

Groups who oppose certain generally accepted scientific views about evolution, second-hand tobacco smoke, AIDS, global warming, race, and other politically contentious scientific matters have used the term “political correctness” to describe what they view as unwarranted rejection of their perspective on these issues by a scientific community they feel is corrupted by liberal politics.[60]

“Political correctness” is a label typically used to describe liberal terms and actions, but not for equivalent attempts to mold language and behavior on the right.[61] However, the term “right-wing political correctness” is sometimes applied by commentators,[62] especially when drawing parallels: in 1995, one author used the term “conservative correctness” arguing, in relation to higher education, that “critics of political correctness show a curious blindness when it comes to examples of conservative correctness. Most often, the case is entirely ignored or censorship of the Left is justified as a positive virtue. […] A balanced perspective was lost, and everyone missed the fact that people on all sides were sometimes censored.”[25]

In 2003, French fries and French toast were renamed “Freedom fries” and “Freedom toast” in three U.S. House of Representatives cafeterias in response to France’s opposition to the proposed invasion of Iraq; this was described as “polluting the already confused concept of political correctness.”[63] In 2004, then Australian Labor leader Mark Latham described conservative calls for “civility” in politics as “the new political correctness.”[64]

In 2012, Paul Krugman wrote: “the big threat to our discourse is right-wing political correctness, which unlike the liberal version has lots of power and money behind it. And the goal is very much the kind of thing Orwell tried to convey with his notion of Newspeak: to make it impossible to talk, and possibly even think, about ideas that challenge the established order.”[27]

After Mike Pence was booed at a November 2016 performance of Hamilton, president-elect Trump called it harassment and asked for a “safe and special place”.[65] Chrissy Teigen commented that it was “the very thing him and his supporters make fun of as liberal political correctness.”[66]

Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute defined the right’s own version of political correctness as “patriotic correctness”.[67] Vox editor Dara Lind summarized the definition as “a brand of right-wing hypersensitivity that gets just as offended by insults to American pride and patriotism (like protests against the president-elect or The Star-Spangled Banner) as any college activist gets over insults to diversity.”[68] Jim Geraghty of National Review replied to Nowrasteh, stating that “There is no right-wing equivalent to political correctness.”[69][why?]

In 2015 and 2016, leading up to the 2016 United States presidential election, Republican candidate Donald Trump used political correctness as a common target in his rhetoric.[68][70][24] According to Trump, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were willing to let ordinary Americans suffer because their first priority was political correctness.[71]

In the Huffington Post, Eric Mink characterized Trump’s concept of “political correctness”:

Political correctness is a controversial social force in a nation with a constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression, and it raises legitimate issues well worth discussing and debating. But thats not what Trump is doing. Hes not a rebel speaking unpopular truths to power. Hes not standing up for honest discussions of deeply contentious issues. Hes not out there defying rules handed down by elites to control what we say. All Trumps defying is common decency.[24]

Following the 2016 election, Los Angeles Times columnist Jessica Roy wrote that “political correctness” is one of the key terms used by the American alt-right, who refer to it as being “responsible for most of society’s ills”.[72]

Some conservative commentators in the West argue that “political correctness” and multiculturalism are part of a conspiracy with the ultimate goal of undermining Judeo-Christian values. This theory, which holds that political correctness originates from the critical theory of the Frankfurt School as part of a conspiracy that its proponents call “Cultural Marxism”, is generally known as the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory by academics.[73] The theory originated with Michael Minnicino’s 1992 essay “New Dark Age: Frankfurt School and ‘Political Correctness'”, published in a Lyndon LaRouche movement journal.[74] In 2001, conservative commentator Patrick Buchanan wrote in The Death of the West that “political correctness is cultural Marxism”, and that “its trademark is intolerance”.[75]

In the United States, left forces of “political correctness” have been blamed for censorship, with Time citing campaigns against violence on network television as contributing to a “mainstream culture [which] has become cautious, sanitized, scared of its own shadow” because of “the watchful eye of the p.c. police”, even though in John Wilson’s view protests and advertiser boycotts targeting TV shows are generally organized by right-wing religious groups campaigning against violence, sex, and depictions of homosexuality on television.[76]

In the United Kingdom, some newspapers reported that a nursery school had altered the nursery rhyme “Baa Baa Black Sheep” to read “Baa Baa Rainbow Sheep” and had banned the original.[77] But it was later reported that in fact the Parents and Children Together (PACT) nursery had the children “turn the song into an action rhyme…. They sing happy, sad, bouncing, hopping, pink, blue, black and white sheep etc.”[78] This story was widely circulated and later extended to suggest that other language bans applied to the terms “black coffee” and “blackboard”.[79] Private Eye magazine reported that similar stories had been published in the British press since The Sun first ran them in 1986.[80]

Political correctness is often satirized, for example in The PC Manifesto (1992) by Saul Jerushalmy and Rens Zbignieuw X,[81] and Politically Correct Bedtime Stories (1994) by James Finn Garner, which presents fairy tales re-written from an exaggerated politically correct perspective. In 1994, the comedy film PCU took a look at political correctness on a college campus.

Other examples include the television program Politically Incorrect, George Carlins “Euphemisms” routine, and The Politically Correct Scrapbook.[82] The popularity of the South Park cartoon program led to the creation of the term “South Park Republican” by Andrew Sullivan, and later the book South Park Conservatives by Brian C. Anderson.[83] In its Season 19 (2015), South Park introduced the character PC Principal, who embodies the principle, to poke fun at the principle of political correctness.[84]

The Colbert Report’s host Stephen Colbert often talked, satirically, about the “PC Police”.[85]

Graham Good, an academic at the University of British Columbia, wrote that the term was widely used in debates on university education in Canada. Writing about a 1995 report on the Political Science department at his university, he concluded:”‘Political correctness’ has become a popular phrase because it catches a certain kind of self-righteous and judgmental tone in some and a pervasive anxiety in others who, fearing that they may do something wrong, adjust their facial expressions, and pause in their speech to make sure they are not doing or saying anything inappropriate. The climate this has created on campuses is at least as bad in Canada as in the United States.”[86]

In Hong Kong, as the 1997 handover drew nearer, greater control over the press was exercised by both owners and the Chinese state. This had a direct impact on news coverage of relatively sensitive political issues. The Chinese authorities exerted pressure on individual newspapers to take pro-Beijing stances on controversial issues.[87] Tung Chee-hwa’s policy advisers and senior bureaucrats increasingly linked their actions and remarks to “political correctness.” Zhaojia Liu and Siu-kai Lau, writing in The first Tung Chee-hwa administration: the first five years of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, said that “Hong Kong has traditionally been characterized as having freedom of speech and freedom of press, but that an unintended consequence of emphasizing political ‘correctness’ is to limit the space for such freedom of expression.”[88]

In New Zealand, controversies over PC surfaced during the 1990s regarding the social studies school curriculum.[89][90]

The term “politically correct”, with its suggestion of Stalinist orthodoxy, is spoken more with irony and disapproval than with reverence. But, across the country the term “P.C.”, as it is commonly abbreviated, is being heard more and more in debates over what should be taught at the universities.

Link:

Political correctness – Wikipedia

Munk Debates – Political Correctness

Is political correctness an enemy of free speech, open debate and the free exchange of ideas? Or, by confronting head-on the dominant power relationships and social norms that exclude marginalised groups are we creating a more equitable and just society? For some the argument is clear. Political correctness is stifling the free and open debate that fuels our democracy. It is also needlessly dividing one group from another and promoting social conflict. Others insist that creating public spaces and norms that give voice to previously marginalised groups broadens the scope of free speech. The drive towards inclusion over exclusion is essential to creating healthy, diverse societies in an era of rapid social change.

The Spring 2018 Munk Debate will move the motion: Be it resolved, what you call political correctness, I call progress

Read more:

Munk Debates – Political Correctness

Political correctness – definition of political …

Conforming to a particular sociopolitical ideology or point of view, especially to a liberal point of view concerned with promoting tolerance and avoiding offense in matters of race, class, gender, and sexual orientation.

political correctness n.

ThesaurusAntonymsRelated WordsSynonymsLegend:

Want to thank TFD for its existence? Tell a friend about us, add a link to this page, or visit the webmaster’s page for free fun content.

Link to this page: political correctness

More:

Political correctness – definition of political …

Urban Dictionary: political correctness

Something that started out as a sort of moral common sense – actually not a bad idea, eg. saying ‘black person’ instead of ‘god-damn cotton-pickin’ nigger’.However, the whole thing got utterly out of hand in the early 90s to the point where a lot of people will say ‘Afro-Carribean’ or ‘Afro-American’ because they think it’s racist to say ‘black’! It gets even more ridiculous when you consider that in some parts people think it’s offensive to ‘blackboard’ or ‘black coffee’.

What began as a force for good (considering the number of people who really are racist, sexist and homophobic) has since become a laughing stock beacause of the ridiculous extremes to which certain neurotic ultra-liberals took it – cf. a person being ‘vertically challenged’ rather than short. This has actually undone a lot of progress made in changing bigoted attitudes (as bigot can claim any offence taken at their views is ‘political correctness gone mad), whilst making people feel guilty for enjoying anything but the blandest, most anaemic humour for fear of being ‘offensive’. I mean, seriously, what’s funnier out of ‘Friends’ and ‘South Park’? (Or ‘The League of Gentlemen’ for the benefit of any Brits out there?)

At the same time as straight white able-bodied men are going out of their way to talk about ‘ethnic people’ (who ISN’T ethnic!?) and those of ‘different sexual orientation’, there are blacks calling themselves niggas (which has been going on for years), gays calling themselves (and eachother!) poof, queens and queers, and so on – the real way to neutralize a term used as as an insult is for those to whom it was applied to use it themselves.

AT its worst, political correctness is nothing different form Orwell’s Newspeak – an attempt to change the way people think by forcibly changing the way they speak. So let’s have a backlash against the nannying, interefering, cotton-wool Stalinism ‘ploitical correctness’ has become – not to placate bigots, but to speak the truth and enjoy outrageous humour like we’re meant to. Remember, the next time someone says they don’t like Harry Potter because Hermione is a stereotypically sensitive girl, the relevant word to call them is ‘cunt’.See also liberal guilt, stereotyping, stupidity

b.t.w. a great many stereotypes exist because they’re essentially TRUE.

Limp-wristed idiot: “I’m not sure I feel comfortable with your use of the word ‘woman’, and the assumption of an inflexible gender binary that goes with it…”

Go here to read the rest:

Urban Dictionary: political correctness

The Latest Casualty of the Marines Surrender to Political …

Marine Lt. Col. Marcus Mainz (left) on the amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge in September 2017 during relief efforts after Hurricane Irma. Mainz was relieved of command in May. (Kaitlyn E. Eads/U.S. Navy)

Several weeks ago, the United States Marine Corps copied its old Japanese adversary and committed seppuku. It did so by relieving its best battalion commander and most promising future senior combat leader of his command, thus terminating his career. As another Marine lieutenant colonel said to me, The last light shining in the darkness has been put out.

The officer relieved of his command was Lieutenant Colonel Marcus Mainz. Some years ago Mainz, as a captain, was one of my students in a Fourth Generation War seminar at the Marine Corps Expeditionary Warfare School. He was one of the bestbright, tremendous energy, a powerful personality, and an ability to get results. These are exactly the qualities the Marine Corps needs in its leaders if it is to implement its doctrine of maneuver warfare. Now that doctrine seems to be little more than words on paper.

Mainz, through the innovative training program he implemented in his battalion, had built a substantial and devoted following throughout the Marine Corps. Now many of his admirers are giving up and putting in their paperwork to resign or retire. Their hope is gone. A Marine major said to me, The second- and third-order effects of his dismissal are massive.

What led the Marine Corps to devour its young? The answer lies in the moral cowardice the senior Marine Corps leadership (and that of our other armed services) routinely displays in the face of political correctness, i.e., cultural Marxism.

Speaking to his Marines, as told to me, Mainz dismissed some of the administrivia that eats up much of their training time, saying something like, Were not going to do that faggot stuff. A Marine understandably objected to his use of the word faggot, and a brigadier general ordered him relieved of his command.Of course it cant be disputed that this was an unfortunate and inappropriate expression. A proper sanction would have been justified. But to destroy the career of one of the Corps best commanders for a lapsus linguae is ridiculous. Should this lapse wipe away all the good accomplished by this highly effective military leaderand all of his potential future accomplishments in a Corps that needs his leadership? And does the Marine Corps really want to put such fear into its best officers that they lose their force and swagger?[Note: Theofficial explanation the Marines have issued for Mainzs loss of command is that it was due to a loss of trust and confidence in his ability to continue to lead the battalion.]

Far from being an isolated incident, the relief of this brilliant officer points to the worm that is gnawing away at the Marine Corps vitals: preparing for war has become the lowest priority. A new book by a Marine attack helicopter pilot, now out of the Corps, Captain Jeff Groom, ably satirizes that reality. Subtitled A Marine Remembers a Dog and Pony Show, American Cobra Pilot points to the Corps real priorities: political correctness and looking good (which is very different from being good).

Most of the political correctness stems from the absurd social experiment of putting young Marines, men and women who sometimes are not out of their teens, together to work and live in close proximity while saying to the men, If a single impure thought crosses your mind, if you so much as look at a pretty girl with a twinkle in your eye, you are guilty of sexual harassment. The monks on Mt. Athos would not subject themselves to such temptation. Nor does the male Marine have to do or say anything sexual. If he gives a woman an order she doesnt like, if he critiques the way she is doing her job, if he displeases her in any way, she can charge sexual harassment, knowing he likely will be considered guilty until proven innocent.

Why are the generals so terrified of offending the cultural Marxists? For fear Nancy Pelosi or some other congressional dingbat might go after the Marine Corps budget in retaliation. They seem to care about little else. Decades ago, when the situation was less bad than it is now, a Marine friend was in charge of setting up and running the commandants new War Room in Headquarters, Marine Corps. He said to me, The only war ever discussed in it is the budget war. The fact that many generals go to work at princely salaries for defense contractors once they retire (with six-figure pensions) may be relevant.

Meanwhile, as Grooms book lays out, the Corps covers its poor job of preparing for war by putting on magnificent public displays, which Marines call dog and pony shows. The book focuses on a particular dog and pony show staged for the South Koreans that pretended to be warlike. But you need not travel far to see one. The Taliban could never put on as splendid a display as the Evening Parade on summer Friday nights at the Corps historic 8th and I barracks in the capital. In Afghanistan, the Taliban is winning, but what does that matter so long as the generals who have presided over our defeat keep getting promoted? As one Army lieutenant colonel said in print a few years ago, ending his career, A private who loses his rifle gets in more trouble than a general who loses a war.

Generals who show moral cowardice in the face of cultural Marxismwhen Donald Trump is their commander-in-chief!are not likely to demonstrate boldness and daring in combat. Field grade officers who go by the book and give their Marines scanty and mostly unrealistic training are failing in their primary duty. The dog and pony shows may look great to the public, but the ponies are wooden and the dogs are dead. The Marine Corps that relieved Lieutenant Colonel Marcus Mainz of his command is a fraud.

William S. Lind is the author, with Lt. Col. Gregory A. Thiele, of the 4th Generation Warfare Handbook.

Follow this link:

The Latest Casualty of the Marines Surrender to Political …

Urban Dictionary: political correctness

Something that started out as a sort of moral common sense – actually not a bad idea, eg. saying ‘black person’ instead of ‘god-damn cotton-pickin’ nigger’.However, the whole thing got utterly out of hand in the early 90s to the point where a lot of people will say ‘Afro-Carribean’ or ‘Afro-American’ because they think it’s racist to say ‘black’! It gets even more ridiculous when you consider that in some parts people think it’s offensive to ‘blackboard’ or ‘black coffee’.

What began as a force for good (considering the number of people who really are racist, sexist and homophobic) has since become a laughing stock beacause of the ridiculous extremes to which certain neurotic ultra-liberals took it – cf. a person being ‘vertically challenged’ rather than short. This has actually undone a lot of progress made in changing bigoted attitudes (as bigot can claim any offence taken at their views is ‘political correctness gone mad), whilst making people feel guilty for enjoying anything but the blandest, most anaemic humour for fear of being ‘offensive’. I mean, seriously, what’s funnier out of ‘Friends’ and ‘South Park’? (Or ‘The League of Gentlemen’ for the benefit of any Brits out there?)

At the same time as straight white able-bodied men are going out of their way to talk about ‘ethnic people’ (who ISN’T ethnic!?) and those of ‘different sexual orientation’, there are blacks calling themselves niggas (which has been going on for years), gays calling themselves (and eachother!) poof, queens and queers, and so on – the real way to neutralize a term used as as an insult is for those to whom it was applied to use it themselves.

AT its worst, political correctness is nothing different form Orwell’s Newspeak – an attempt to change the way people think by forcibly changing the way they speak. So let’s have a backlash against the nannying, interefering, cotton-wool Stalinism ‘ploitical correctness’ has become – not to placate bigots, but to speak the truth and enjoy outrageous humour like we’re meant to. Remember, the next time someone says they don’t like Harry Potter because Hermione is a stereotypically sensitive girl, the relevant word to call them is ‘cunt’.See also liberal guilt, stereotyping, stupidity

b.t.w. a great many stereotypes exist because they’re essentially TRUE.

Limp-wristed idiot: “I’m not sure I feel comfortable with your use of the word ‘woman’, and the assumption of an inflexible gender binary that goes with it…”

See the article here:

Urban Dictionary: political correctness

Munk Debates – Political Correctness

Is political correctness an enemy of free speech, open debate and the free exchange of ideas? Or, by confronting head-on the dominant power relationships and social norms that exclude marginalised groups are we creating a more equitable and just society? For some the argument is clear. Political correctness is stifling the free and open debate that fuels our democracy. It is also needlessly dividing one group from another and promoting social conflict. Others insist that creating public spaces and norms that give voice to previously marginalised groups broadens the scope of free speech. The drive towards inclusion over exclusion is essential to creating healthy, diverse societies in an era of rapid social change.

The Spring 2018 Munk Debate will move the motion: Be it resolved, what you call political correctness, I call progress

Link:

Munk Debates – Political Correctness

20 Outrageous Examples That Show How Political Correctness …

The thought police are watching you. Back in the 1990s, lots of jokes were made about political correctness, and almost everybody thought they were really funny. Unfortunately, very few people are laughing now because political correctness has become a way of life in America. If you say the wrong thing you could lose your job or you could rapidly end up in court. Every single day, the mainstream media bombards us with subtle messages that make it clear what is appropriate and what is inappropriate, and most Americans quietly fall in line with this unwritten speech code. But just because it is not written down somewhere does not mean that it isnt real. In fact, this speech code becomes more restrictive and more suffocating with each passing year. The goal of the thought Nazis is to control what people say to one another, because eventually that will shape what most people think and what most people believe. If you dont think this is true, just try the following experiment some time. Go to a public place where a lot of people are gathered and yell out something horribly politically incorrect such as I love Jesus and watch people visibly cringe. The name of Jesus has become a curse word in our politically correct society, and we have been trained to have a negative reaction to it in public places. After that, yell out something politically correct such as I support gay marriage and watch what happens. You will probably get a bunch of smiles and quite a few people may even approach you to express their appreciation for what you just said. Of course this is going to vary depending on what area of the country you live in, but hopefully you get the idea. Billions of dollars of media programming has changed the definitions of what people consider to be acceptable and what people consider to be not acceptable. Political correctness shapes the way that we all communicate with each other every single day, and it is only going to get worse in the years ahead. Sadly, most people simply have no idea what is happening to them.

The following are 20 outrageous examples that show how political correctness is taking over America

#1 According to a new Army manual, U.S. soldiers will now be instructed to avoid any criticism of pedophilia and to avoid criticizing anything related to Islam. The following is from a recent Judicial Watch article

The draft leaked to the newspaper offers a list of taboo conversation topics that soldiers should avoid, including making derogatory comments about the Taliban, advocating womens rights, any criticism of pedophilia, directing any criticism towards Afghans, mentioning homosexuality and homosexual conduct or anything related to Islam.

#2 The Obama administration has banned all U.S. government agencies from producing any training materials that link Islam with terrorism. In fact, the FBI has gone back and purged references to Islam and terrorism from hundreds of old documents.

#3 Authorities are cracking down on public expressions of the Christian faith all over the nation, and yet atheists in New York City are allowed to put up an extremely offensive billboard in Time Square this holiday season that shows a picture of Jesus on the cross underneath a picture of Santa with the following tagline: Keep the Merry! Dump the Myth!

#4 According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, it is illegal for employers to discriminate against criminals because it has a disproportionate impact on minorities.

#5 Down in California, Governor Jerry Brown has signed a bill that will allow large numbers of illegal immigrants to legally get California drivers licenses.

#6 Should an illegal immigrant be able to get a law license and practice law in the United States? That is exactly what the State Bar of California argued earlier this year

An illegal immigrant applying for a law license in California should be allowed to receive it, the State Bar of California argues in a filing to the state Supreme Court.

Sergio Garcia, 35, of Chico, Calif., has met the rules for admission, including passing the bar exam and the moral character review, and his lack of legal status in the United States should not automatically disqualify him, the Committee of Bar Examiners said Monday.

#7 More than 75 percent of the babies born in Detroit are born to unmarried women, yet it is considered to be politically correct to suggest that there is anything wrong with that.

#8 The University of Minnesota Duluth (UMD) initiated an aggressive advertising campaign earlier this year that included online videos, billboards, and lectures that sought to raise awareness about white privilege.

#9 At one high school down in California, five students were sent home from school for wearing shirts that displayed the American flag on the Mexican holiday of Cinco de Mayo.

#10 Chris Matthews of MSNBC recently suggested that it is racist for conservatives to use the word Chicago.

#11 A judge down in North Carolina has ruled that it is unconstitutional for North Carolina to offer license plates that say Choose Life on them.

#12 The number of gay characters on television is at an all-time record high. Meanwhile, there are barely any strongly Christian characters to be found anywhere on television or in the movies, and if they do happen to show up they are almost always portrayed in a very negative light.

#13 House Speaker John Boehner recently stripped key committee positions from four rebellious conservatives in the U.S. House of Representatives. It is believed that this purge happened in order to send a message that members of the party better fall in line and support Boehner in his negotiations with Barack Obama.

#14 There is already a huge push to have a woman elected president in 2016. It doesnt appear that it even matters which woman is elected. There just seems to be a feeling that it is time for a woman to be elected even if she doesnt happen to be the best candidate.

#15 Volunteer chaplains for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department have been banned from using the name of Jesus on government property.

#16 Chaplains in the U.S. military are being forced to perform gay marriages, even if it goes against their personal religious beliefs. The few chaplains that have refused to follow orders know that it means the end of their careers.

#17 All over the country, the term manhole is being replaced with the terms utility hole or maintenance hole.

#18 In San Francisco, authorities have installed small plastic privacy screens on library computers so that perverts can continue to exercise their right to watch pornography at the library without children being exposed to it.

#19 You will never guess what is going on at one college up in Washington state

A Washington college said their non-discrimination policy prevents them from stopping a transgender man from exposing himself to young girls inside a womens locker room, according to a group of concerned parents.

#20 All over America, liberal commentators are now suggesting that football has become too violent and too dangerous and that it needs to be substantially toned down. In fact, one liberal columnist for the Boston Globe is even proposing that football should be banned for anyone under the age of 14.

Visit link:

20 Outrageous Examples That Show How Political Correctness …

Frankfurt School – Wikipedia

school of neo-Marxist interdisciplinary social theory

The Frankfurt School (Frankfurter Schule) is a school of social theory and critical philosophy associated with the Institute for Social Research, at Goethe University Frankfurt. Founded in the Weimar Republic (191833), during the European interwar period (191839), the Frankfurt School comprised intellectuals, academics, and political dissidents who were ill-fitted to the contemporary socio-economic systems (capitalist, fascist, communist) of the 1930s. The Frankfurt theoreticians proposed that social theory was inadequate for explaining the turbulent political factionalism and reactionary politics occurring in ostensibly liberal capitalist societies in the 20th century. Critical of capitalism and of MarxismLeninism as philosophically inflexible systems of social organisation, the School’s critical theory research indicated alternative paths to realising the social development of a society and a nation.[1]

The Frankfurt School perspective of critical investigation (open-ended and self-critical) is based upon Freudian, Marxist, and Hegelian premises of idealist philosophy.[2] To fill the omissions of 19th-century classical Marxism, which could not address 20th-century social problems, they applied the methods of antipositivist sociology, of psychoanalysis, and of existentialism.[3] The Schools sociologic works derived from syntheses of the thematically pertinent works of Immanuel Kant, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, and Karl Marx, of Sigmund Freud and Max Weber, and of Georg Simmel and Georg Lukcs.[4][5]

Like Karl Marx, the Frankfurt School concerned themselves with the conditions (political, economic, societal) that allow for social change realised by way of rational social institutions.[6] The emphasis upon the critical component of social theory derived from surpassing the ideological limitations of positivism, materialism, and determinism, by returning to the critical philosophy of Kant, and his successors in German idealism principally the philosophy of G.W.F. Hegel, which emphasised dialectic and contradiction as intellectual properties inherent to the human grasp of material reality.

Since the 1960s, the critical-theory work of the Institute for Social Research has been guided by Jrgen Habermas, in the fields of communicative rationality, linguistic intersubjectivity, and “the philosophical discourse of modernity”;[7] nonetheless, the critical theorists Raymond Geuss and Nikolas Kompridis opposed the propositions of Habermas, claiming he has undermined the original social-change purposes of critical-theory-problems, such as: What should reason mean?; the analysis and expansion of the conditions necessary to realise social emancipation; and critiques of contemporary capitalism.[8]

The term Frankfurt School informally describes the works of scholarship and the intellectuals who were the Institute for Social Research (Institut fr Sozialforschung), an adjunct organization at Goethe University Frankfurt, founded in 1923, by Carl Grnberg, a Marxist professor of law at the University of Vienna.[9] As such, the Frankfurt School was the first Marxist research center at a German university, and originated through the largesse of the wealthy student Felix Weil (18981975).[3]

At university, Weils doctoral dissertation dealt with the practical problems of implementing socialism. In 1922, he organized the First Marxist Workweek (Erste Marxistische Arbeitswoche) in effort to synthesize different trends of Marxism into a coherent, practical philosophy; the first symposium included Gyrgy Lukcs and Karl Korsch, Karl August Wittfogel and Friedrich Pollock. The success of the First Marxist Workweek prompted the formal establishment of a permanent institute for social research, and Weil negotiated with the Ministry of Education for a university professor to be director of the Institute for Social Research, thereby, formally ensuring that the Frankfurt School would be a university institution.[10]

Korsch and Lukcs participated in the Arbeitswoche, which included the study of Marxism and Philosophy (1923), by Karl Korsch, but their communist-party membership precluded their active participation in the Institute for Social Research (Frankfurt School); yet Korsch participated in the School’s publishing venture. Moreover, the political correctness by which the Communists compelled Lukcs to repudiate his book History and Class Consciousness (1923) indicated that political, ideological, and intellectual independence from the communist party was a necessary work condition for realising the production of knowledge.[10]

The philosophical tradition of the Frankfurt School the multi-disciplinary integration of the social sciences is associated with the philosopher Max Horkheimer, who became the director in 1930, and recruited intellectuals such as Theodor W. Adorno (philosopher, sociologist, musicologist), Erich Fromm (psychoanalyst), and Herbert Marcuse (philosopher).[3]

In the Weimar Republic (191833), the continual, political turmoils of the interwar years (191839) much affected the development of the Frankfurt School philosophy of critical theory. The scholars were especially influenced by the Communists failed German Revolution of 191819 (which Marx predicted) and by the rise of Nazism (193345), a German form of fascism. To explain such reactionary politics, the Frankfurt scholars applied critical selections of Marxist philosophy to interpret, illuminate, and explain the origins and causes of reactionary socio-economics in 20th-century Europe (a type of political economy unknown to Marx in the 19th century). The Schools further intellectual development derived from the publication, in the 1930s, of the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 (1932) and The German Ideology (1932), in which Karl Marx showed logical continuity with Hegelianism, as the basis of Marxist philosophy.

As the anti-intellectual threat of Nazism increased to political violence, the founders decided to move the Institute for Social Research out of Nazi Germany (193345).[11] Soon after Adolf Hitler’s rise to power in 1933, the Institute first moved from Frankfurt to Geneva, and then to New York City, in 1935, where the Frankfurt School joined Columbia University. In the event, the Schools journal, the Zeitschrift fr Sozialforschung (“Magazine of Social Research”) was renamed “Studies in Philosophy and Social Science”. Thence began the period of the Schools important work in Marxist critical theory; the scholarship and the investigational method gained acceptance among the academy, in the U.S and in the U.K. By the 1950s, the paths of scholarship led Horkheimer, Adorno, and Pollock to return to West Germany, whilst Marcuse, Lwenthal, and Kirchheimer remained in the U.S. In 1953, the Institute for Social Research (Frankfurt School) was formally re-established in Frankfurt, West Germany.[12]

As a term, the Frankfurt School usually comprises the intellectuals Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and Herbert Marcuse, Leo Lwenthal and Friedrich Pollock.[6] Although initially of the FS’s inner circle, Jrgen Habermas was the first to diverge from Horkheimer’s research program, as a new generation of critical theoreticians.

Associates of the Frankfurt School:

Critical theoreticians of the Frankfurt School:

The works of the Frankfurt School are understood in the context of the intellectual and practical objectives of critical theory. In Traditional and Critical Theory (1937), Max Horkheimer defined critical theory as social critique meant to effect sociologic change and realize intellectual emancipation, by way of enlightenment that is not dogmatic in its assumptions.[14][15] The purpose of critical theory is to analyze the true significance of the ruling understandings (the dominant ideology) generated in bourgeois society, by showing that the dominant ideology misrepresents how human relations occur in the real world, and how such misrepresentations function to justify and legitimate the domination of people by capitalism.

In the praxis of cultural hegemony, the dominant ideology is a ruling-class narrative story, which explains that what is occurring in society is the norm. Nonetheless, the story told through the ruling understandings conceals as much as it reveals about society, hence, the task of the Frankfurt School was sociological analysis and interpretation of the areas of social-relation that Marx did not discuss in the 19th century especially in the Base and superstructure aspects of a capitalist society.[16]

Horkheimer opposed critical theory to traditional theory, wherein the word theory is applied in the positivistic sense of scientism, in the sense of a purely observational mode, which finds and establishes scientific law (generalizations) about the real world. That the social sciences differ from the natural sciences inasmuch as scientific generalizations are not readily derived from experience, because the researchers understanding of a social experience always is shaped by the ideas in the mind of the researcher. What the researcher does not understand is that he or she is within an historical context, wherein ideologies shape human thought, thus, the results for the theory being tested would conform to the ideas of the researcher, rather than conform to the facts of the experience proper; in Traditional and Critical Theory (1937), Horkheimer said:

The facts, which our senses present to us, are socially performed in two ways: through the historical character of the object perceived, and through the historical character of the perceiving organ. Both are not simply natural; they are shaped by human activity, and yet the individual perceives himself as receptive and passive in the act of perception.[17]

For Horkheimer, the methods of investigation applicable to the social sciences cannot imitate the scientific method applicable to the natural sciences. In that vein, the theoretical approaches of positivism and pragmatism, of neo-Kantianism and phenomenology failed to surpass the ideological constraints that restricted their application to social science, because of the inherent logicomathematic prejudice that separates theory from actual life, i.e. such methods of investigation seek a logic that is always true, and independent of and without consideration for continuing human activity in the field under study. That the appropriate response to such a dilemma was the development of a critical theory of Marxism.[18]

Because the problem was epistemological, Horkheimer said that “we should reconsider not merely the scientist, but the knowing individual, in general.”[19] Unlike Orthodox Marxism, which applies a template to critique and to action, critical theory is self-critical, with no claim to the universality of absolute truth. As such, critical theory does not grant primacy to matter (materialism) or to consciousness (idealism), because each epistemology distorts the reality under study, to the benefit of a small group. In practice, critical theory is outside the philosophical strictures of traditional theory; however, as a way of thinking and of recovering humanitys self-knowledge, critical theory draws investigational resources and methods from Marxism.[15]

The Institute also attempted to reformulate dialectics as a concrete method. The use of such a dialectical method can be traced back to the philosophy of Hegel, who conceived dialectic as the tendency of a notion to pass over into its own negation as the result of conflict between its inherent contradictory aspects.[20] In opposition to previous modes of thought, which viewed things in abstraction, each by itself and as though endowed with fixed properties, Hegelian dialectic has the ability to consider ideas according to their movement and change in time, as well as according to their interrelations and interactions.[20]

History, according to Hegel, proceeds and evolves in a dialectical manner: the present embodies the rational sublation, or “synthesis”, of past contradictions. History may thus be seen as an intelligible process (which Hegel referred to as Weltgeist), which is the moving towards a specific conditionthe rational realization of human freedom.[21] However, considerations about the future were of no interest to Hegel,[22][23] for whom philosophy cannot be prescriptive because it understands only in hindsight. The study of history is thus limited to the description of past and present realities.[21] Hence for Hegel and his successors, dialectics inevitably lead to the approval of the status quoindeed, Hegel’s philosophy served as a justification for Christian theology and the Prussian state.

This was fiercely criticized by Marx and the Young Hegelians, who argued that Hegel had gone too far in defending his abstract conception of “absolute Reason” and had failed to notice the “real”i.e. undesirable and irrationallife conditions of the working class. By turning Hegel’s idealist dialectics upside-down, Marx advanced his own theory of dialectical materialism, arguing that “it is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.”[24] Marx’s theory follows a materialist conception of history and space,[25] where the development of the productive forces is seen as the primary motive force for historical change, and according to which the social and material contradictions inherent to capitalism inevitably lead to its negationthereby replacing capitalism with a new rational form of society: communism.[26]

Marx thus extensively relied on a form of dialectical analysis. This methodto know the truth by uncovering the contradictions in presently predominant ideas and, by extension, in the social relations to which they are linkedexposes the underlying struggle between opposing forces. For Marx, it is only by becoming aware of the dialectic (i.e., class consciousness) of such opposing forces, in a struggle for power, that individuals can liberate themselves and change the existing social order.[27]

For their part, Frankfurt School theorists quickly came to realize that a dialectical method could only be adopted if it could be applied to itselfthat is to say, if they adopted a self-correcting methoda dialectical method that would enable them to correct previous false dialectical interpretations. Accordingly, critical theory rejected the historicism and materialism of orthodox Marxism.[28] Indeed, the material tensions and class struggles of which Marx spoke were no longer seen by Frankfurt School theorists as having the same revolutionary potential within contemporary Western societiesan observation that indicated that Marx’s dialectical interpretations and predictions were either incomplete or incorrect.

Contrary to orthodox Marxist praxis, which solely seeks to implement an unchangeable and narrow idea of “communism” into practice, critical theorists held that praxis and theory, following the dialectical method, should be interdependent and should mutually influence each other. When Marx famously stated in his Theses on Feuerbach that “philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it”, his real idea was that philosophy’s only validity was in how it informed action. Frankfurt School theorists would correct this by arguing that when action fails, then the theory guiding it must be reviewed. In short, socialist philosophical thought must be given the ability to criticize itself and “overcome” its own errors. While theory must inform praxis, praxis must also have a chance to inform theory.[citation needed]

The second phase of Frankfurt School critical theory centres principally on two works: Adorno and Horkheimer’s Dialectic of Enlightenment (1944) and Adorno’s Minima Moralia (1951). The authors wrote both works during the Institute’s exile in America. While retaining much of a Marxian analysis, in these works critical theory shifted its emphasis from the critique of capitalism to a critique of Western civilization as a whole, as seen in Dialectic of Enlightenment, which uses the Odyssey as a paradigm for their analysis of bourgeois consciousness. In these works, Horkheimer and Adorno present many themes that have come to dominate the social thought of recent years; for instance, their exposition of the domination of nature as a central characteristic of instrumental rationality in Western civilization was made long before ecology and environmentalism had become popular concerns.

The analysis of reason now goes one stage further: The rationality of Western civilization appears as a fusion of domination and technological rationality, bringing all of external and internal nature under the power of the human subject. In the process, however, the subject itself gets swallowed up and no social force analogous to the proletariat can be identified that enables the subject to emancipate itself. Hence the subtitle of Minima Moralia: “Reflections from Damaged Life”. In Adorno’s words,

For since the overwhelming objectivity of historical movement in its present phase consists so far only in the dissolution of the subject, without yet giving rise to a new one, individual experience necessarily bases itself on the old subject, now historically condemned, which is still for-itself, but no longer in-itself. The subject still feels sure of its autonomy, but the nullity demonstrated to subjects by the concentration camp is already overtaking the form of subjectivity itself.[29]

Consequently, at a time when it appears that reality itself has become the basis for ideology, the greatest contribution that critical theory can make is to explore the dialectical contradictions of individual subjective experience on the one hand, and to preserve the truth of theory on the other. Even dialectical progress is put into doubt: “its truth or untruth is not inherent in the method itself, but in its intention in the historical process.” This intention must be oriented toward integral freedom and happiness: “The only philosophy which can be responsibly practiced in face of despair is the attempt to contemplate all things as they would present themselves from the standpoint of redemption.” Adorno goes on to distance himself from the “optimism” of orthodox Marxism: “beside the demand thus placed on thought, the question of the reality or unreality of redemption [i.e. human emancipation] itself hardly matters.”[30]

From a sociological point of view, both Horkheimer’s and Adorno’s works contain a certain ambivalence concerning the ultimate source or foundation of social domination, an ambivalence that gave rise to the “pessimism” of the new critical theory over the possibility of human emancipation and freedom.[31] This ambivalence was rooted, of course, in the historical circumstances in which the work was originally produced, in particular, the rise of National Socialism, state capitalism, and mass culture as entirely new forms of social domination that could not be adequately explained within the terms of traditional Marxist sociology.[32] For Adorno and Horkheimer, state intervention in the economy had effectively abolished the tension in capitalism between the “relations of production” and “material productive forces of society”a tension that, according to traditional Marxist theory, constituted the primary contradiction within capitalism. The previously “free” market (as an “unconscious” mechanism for the distribution of goods) and “irrevocable” private property of Marx’s epoch have gradually been replaced by the centralized state planning and socialized ownership of the means of production in contemporary Western societies.[33] The dialectic through which Marx predicted the emancipation of modern society is thus suppressed, effectively being subjugated to a positivist rationality of domination.

Of this second “phase” of the Frankfurt School, philosopher and critical theorist Nikolas Kompridis writes that:

According to the now canonical view of its history, Frankfurt School critical theory began in the 1930s as a fairly confident interdisciplinary and materialist research program, the general aim of which was to connect normative social criticism to the emancipatory potential latent in concrete historical processes. Only a decade or so later, however, having revisited the premises of their philosophy of history, Horkheimer and Adorno’s Dialectic of Enlightenment steered the whole enterprise, provocatively and self-consciously, into a skeptical cul-de-sac. As a result they got stuck in the irresolvable dilemmas of the “philosophy of the subject,” and the original program was shrunk to a negativistic practice of critique that eschewed the very normative ideals on which it implicitly depended.[34]

Kompridis argues that this “sceptical cul-de-sac” was arrived at with “a lot of help from the once unspeakable and unprecedented barbarity of European fascism,” and could not be gotten out of without “some well-marked [exit or] Ausgang, showing the way out of the ever-recurring nightmare in which Enlightenment hopes and Holocaust horrors are fatally entangled.” However, this Ausgang, according to Kompridis, would not come until later purportedly in the form of Jrgen Habermas’s work on the intersubjective bases of communicative rationality.[34]

Adorno, a trained classical pianist, wrote The Philosophy of Modern Music (1949), in which he, in essence, polemicizes against popular musicbecause it has become part of the culture industry of advanced capitalist society[pageneeded] and the false consciousness that contributes to social domination. He argued that radical art and music may preserve the truth by capturing the reality of human suffering. Hence:

What radical music perceives is the untransfigured suffering of man […] The seismographic registration of traumatic shock becomes, at the same time, the technical structural law of music. It forbids continuity and development. Musical language is polarized according to its extreme; towards gestures of shock resembling bodily convulsions on the one hand, and on the other towards a crystalline standstill of a human being whom anxiety causes to freeze in her tracks […] Modern music sees absolute oblivion as its goal. It is the surviving message of despair from the shipwrecked.[35]

This view of modern art as producing truth only through the negation of traditional aesthetic form and traditional norms of beauty because they have become ideological is characteristic of Adorno and of the Frankfurt School generally. It has been criticized by those who do not share its conception of modern society as a false totality that renders obsolete traditional conceptions and images of beauty and harmony.

In particular, Adorno despised jazz and popular music, viewing it as part of the culture industry, that contributes to the present sustainability of capitalism by rendering it “aesthetically pleasing” and “agreeable”. The British philosopher Roger Scruton saw Adorno as producing ‘reams of turgid nonsense devoted to showing that the American people are just as alienated as Marxism requires them to be, and that their cheerful life-affirming music is a ‘fetishized’ commodity, expressive of their deep spiritual enslavement to the capitalist machine.'[36]

With the growth of advanced industrial society during the Cold War era, critical theorists recognized that the path of capitalism and history had changed decisively, that the modes of oppression operated differently, and that the industrial working class no longer remained the determinate negation of capitalism. This led to the attempt to root the dialectic in an absolute method of negativity, as in Marcuse’s One-Dimensional Man (1964) and Adorno’s Negative Dialectics (1966). During this period the Institute of Social Research resettled in Frankfurt (although many of its associates remained in the United States) with the task not merely of continuing its research but of becoming a leading force in the sociological education and democratization of West Germany. This led to a certain systematization of the Institute’s entire accumulation of empirical research and theoretical analysis.

During this period, Frankfurt School critical theory particularly influenced some segments of the left wing and leftist thought, particularly the New Left. Herbert Marcuse has occasionally been described as the theorist or intellectual progenitor of the New Left. Their critique of technology, totality, teleology and (occasionally) civilization is an influence on anarcho-primitivism. Their work also heavily influenced intellectual discourse on popular culture and scholarly popular culture studies.

More importantly, however, the Frankfurt School attempted to define the fate of reason in the new historical period. While Marcuse did so through analysis of structural changes in the labor process under capitalism and inherent features of the methodology of science, Horkheimer and Adorno concentrated on a re-examination of the foundation of critical theory. This effort appears in systematized form in Adorno’s Negative Dialectics, which tries to redefine dialectics for an era in which “philosophy, which once seemed obsolete, lives on because the moment to realize it was missed”. Negative dialectics expresses the idea of critical thought so conceived that the apparatus of domination cannot co-opt it.

Its central notion, long a focal one for Horkheimer and Adorno, suggests that the original sin of thought lies in its attempt to eliminate all that is other than thought, the attempt by the subject to devour the object, the striving for identity. This reduction makes thought the accomplice of domination. Negative Dialectics rescues the “preponderance of the object”, not through a nave epistemological or metaphysical realism but through a thought based on differentiation, paradox, and ruse: a “logic of disintegration”. Adorno thoroughly criticizes Heidegger’s fundamental ontology, which he thinks reintroduces idealistic and identity-based concepts under the guise of having overcome the philosophical tradition.

Negative dialectics comprises a monument to the end of the tradition of the individual subject as the locus of criticism. Without a revolutionary working class, the Frankfurt School had no one to rely on but the individual subject. But, as the liberal capitalist social basis of the autonomous individual receded into the past, the dialectic based on it became more and more abstract.

Habermas’s work takes the Frankfurt School’s abiding interests in rationality, the human subject, democratic socialism, and the dialectical method and overcomes a set of contradictions that always weakened critical theory: the contradictions between the materialist and transcendental methods, between Marxian social theory and the individualist assumptions of critical rationalism between technical and social rationalization, and between cultural and psychological phenomena on the one hand and the economic structure of society on the other.

The Frankfurt School avoided taking a stand on the precise relationship between the materialist and transcendental methods, which led to ambiguity in their writings and confusion among their readers. Habermas’s epistemology synthesizes these two traditions by showing that phenomenological and transcendental analysis can be subsumed under a materialist theory of social evolution, while the materialist theory makes sense only as part of a quasi-transcendental theory of emancipatory knowledge that is the self-reflection of cultural evolution. The simultaneously empirical and transcendental nature of emancipatory knowledge becomes the foundation stone of critical theory.

By locating the conditions of rationality in the social structure of language use, Habermas moves the locus of rationality from the autonomous subject to subjects in interaction. Rationality is a property not of individuals per se, but rather of structures of undistorted communication. In this notion Habermas has overcome the ambiguous plight of the subject in critical theory. If capitalistic technological society weakens the autonomy and rationality of the subject, it is not through the domination of the individual by the apparatus but through technological rationality supplanting a describable rationality of communication. And, in his sketch of communicative ethics as the highest stage in the internal logic of the evolution of ethical systems, Habermas hints at the source of a new political practice that incorporates the imperatives of evolutionary rationality.

In The Theory of the Novel (1971), Georg Lukcs said that the Frankfurt School were:

A considerable part of the leading German intelligentsia, including Adorno, have taken up residence in the Grand Hotel Abyss which I described in connection with my critique of Schopenhauer as “a beautiful hotel, equipped with every comfort, on the edge of an abyss, of nothingness, of absurdity. And the daily contemplation of the abyss, between excellent meals or artistic entertainments, can only heighten the enjoyment of the subtle comforts offered.”[37]

In “Addendum 1974: The Frankfurt School” (1994) Karl Popper said that:

Marx’s own condemnation of our society makes sense. For Marx’s theory contains the promise of a better future. But the theory becomes vacuous and irresponsible if this promise is withdrawn, as it is by Adorno and Horkheimer.[38]

In his criticism of Habermas, the philosopher Nikolas Kompridis said that a break with the proceduralist ethics of communicative rationality is necessary:

For all its theoretical ingenuity and practical implications, Habermas’s reformulation of critical theory is beset by persistent problems of its own. . . . In my view, the depth of these problems indicate just how wrong was Habermas’s expectation that the paradigm change to linguistic intersubjectivity would render “objectless” the dilemmas of the philosophy of the subject.[39] Habermas accused Hegel of creating a conception of reason so “overwhelming” that it solved too well the problem of modernity’s [need for] self-reassurance.[40] It seems, however, that Habermas has repeated rather than avoided Hegel’s mistake, creating a theoretical paradigm so comprehensive that in one stroke it also solves, too well, the dilemmas of the philosophy of the subject and the problem of modernity’s self-reassurance.[41]

That:

The change of paradigm to linguistic intersubjectivity has been accompanied by a dramatic change in critical theory’s self-understanding. The priority given to questions of justice and the normative order of society has remodeled critical theory in the image of liberal theories of justice. While this has produced an important contemporary variant of liberal theories of justice, different enough to be a challenge to liberal theory, but not enough to preserve sufficient continuity with critical theory’s past, it has severely weakened the identity of critical theory and inadvertently initiated its premature dissolution.[42]

That to prevent that premature dissolution critical theory should be reinvented as a philosophic enterprise that discloses possibilities by way of Heidegger’s world disclosure, by drawing from the sources of normativity that were blocked by the change of paradigm.[43]

The historian Christopher Lasch criticized the Frankfurt School for their initial tendency of “automatically” rejecting opposing political criticisms, based upon “psychiatric” grounds:

The Authoritarian Personality [1950] had a tremendous influence on [Richard] Hofstadter, and other liberal intellectuals, because it showed them how to conduct political criticism in psychiatric categories, [and] to make those categories bear the weight of political criticism. This procedure excused them from the difficult work of judgment and argumentation. Instead of arguing with opponents, they simply dismissed them on psychiatric grounds.[44]

During the 1980s, anti-authoritarian socialists in the United Kingdom and New Zealand criticised the rigid and determinist view of popular culture deployed within the Frankfurt School theories of capitalist culture, which seemed to preclude any prefigurative role for social critique within such work. They argued that EC Comics often did contain such cultural critiques.[45][46] Recent criticism of the Frankfurt School by the libertarian Cato Institute focused on the claim that culture has grown more sophisticated and diverse as a consequence of free markets and the availability of niche cultural text for niche audiences.[47][48]

In contemporary usage, the term Cultural Marxism identifies an anti-semitic conspiracy theory that misrepresents the Frankfurt School intellectuals as part of continual academic and intellectual efforts to undermine and destroy Western culture, then to be replaced with Marxist culture.[49] In the late 1990s, Cultural Marxism claimed that the Frankfurt School were in a culture-war conspiracy against the Western world, to be realised by undermining traditionalist conservatism with the social liberalism of the Counterculture of the 1960s, such as the social equality of progressive politics, the racial equality of multiculturalism, and linguistic political correctness.[50][51]

In the U.S., the conspiracy ideology of Cultural Marxism is particular to paleoconservative politicians, such as Paul Weyrich, William S. Lind, and Patrick Buchanan, and to like-minded politicians of the alt-right and white nationalist organisations, such as the neo-reactionary Dark Enlightenment.[52] In 1998, Weyrich presented his notion of Cultural Marxism in the speech Letter to Conservatives to the Conservative Leadership Conference of the Civitas Institute think-tank; and later re-published it in the Paul Weyrich Culture War Letter.[53] For the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation, Washington, D.C., at Weyrich’s request William S. Lind wrote a short history of (Weyrich’s) notion of Cultural Marxism, which said that the presence of gay people in television programming is proof of Marxist cultural control of the mass communications media (radio, cinema, television); and claimed that Herbert Marcuse considered and proposed a revolutionary, cultural vanguard, composed of “blacks, students, feminist women, and homosexuals” specifically in the internal politics of the U.S.[50][51][54] A year layer, Lind published Victoria: A Novel of 4th Generation Warfare (1995) about a societal apocalypse in which Cultural Marxism deposed traditionalist conservatism as the culture of the Western world; ultimate, Christian military victory re-establishes traditionalist socio-economic order using the Victorian morality of Britain in the late 19th century.[55][56]

The antiMarxism of Lind and Weyrich advocates political confrontation and intellectual opposition to Cultural Marxism with “a vibrant cultural conservatism” composed of “retro-culture fashions”, a return to railroads as public transport, and an agrarian culture of self-reliance, modeled after that of the Amish folk.[57]In the Dialectic of Counter-Enlightenment: The Frankfurt School as Scapegoat of the Lunatic Fringe (2011), the historian Martin Jay said that Lind’s documentary of conservative counter-culture, Political Correctness: The Frankfurt School (1999) was effective propaganda, because it:

. . . spawned a number of condensed textual versions, which were reproduced on a number of radical, right-wing sites. These, in turn, led to a welter of new videos, now available on YouTube, which feature an odd cast of pseudo-experts regurgitating exactly the same line. The message is numbingly simplistic: All the ills of modern American culture, from feminism, affirmative action, sexual liberation and gay rights to the decay of traditional education, and even environmentalism, are ultimately attributable to the insidious [intellectual] influence of the members of the Institute for Social Research who came to America in the 1930s.[58]

In the “New Dark Age: The Frankfurt School and ‘Political Correctness’ ” (1992), Michael Minnicino communicated the Cultural Marxism conspiracy for the Schiller Institute, of the LaRouche movement; that the antiWestern conspiracy of the Jewish intellectuals in the Frankfurt School promoted Modern art as a form of cultural pessimism that shaped the counter-culture of the 1960s in the manner of the counter-culture of the socially liberal Wandervogel youth movement, in Germany, whose Monte Verit commune was the 19th-century predecessor of Western counter-culture.[59][58][60][61]

In “Ally of Christian Right Heavyweight Paul Weyrich Addresses Holocaust Denial Conference” (15 June 2002) the Southern Poverty Law Center reported William S. Lind’s participation in a conference of Holocaust deniers, wherein he spoke of Cultural Marxism being a threat, because the Frankfurt School was, “to a man, Jewish”. That, although he is neither an anti-semite nor a Holocaust denier, Lind participated in the conference because the Center for Cultural Conservatism has “a regular policy to work with a wide variety of groups, on an issue-by-issue basis”, in behalf of the Free Congress Foundation.[50][62]

In Fascism: Fascism and Culture (2003), Matthew Feldman traced the ideological etymology of the term Cultural Marxism, which is derived from the antiSemitic term Kulturbolshewismus (Cultural Bolshevism) with which Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party claimed that Jewish cultural influence was the source of social degeneration in the German society of the Weimar Republic (191833) and in the Western world.[63]

In Hate Crimes, Vol. 5 (2009), Heidi Beirich said that the Right Wing use Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory to politically de-ligitimize their opponents in the Left Wing, by misrepresenting the Other (person who is not the Self) as someone who threatens the status quo culture especially “feminists, homosexuals, secular humanists, multi-culturalists, sex educators, environmentalists, immigrants, and black nationalists” as politically destructive members of the body politik.[64] In his political manifesto, 2083: A European Declaration of Independence, the Norwegian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik quoted William S. Lind’s usages of the term Cultural Marxism, such as: “[the] Sexually transmitted disease (STD) epidemic in Western Europe [is] a result of cultural Marxism”; that “Cultural Marxism defines . . . Muslims, Feminist women, homosexuals and some additional minority groups as virtuous, and they view ethnic Christian European men as evil”; and that “The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg is a cultural-Marxist-controlled political entity.”[65] Breivik e-mailed his manifesto and a copy of Political Correctness: A Short History of an Ideology (by the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation) to 1,003 addresses some ninety minutes before realising his terrorism in the 2011 Norway attacks in which he killed seventy-seven people.[66][67][68]

In “Collectivists, Communists, Labor Bosses, and Treason: The Tea Parties as Right-wing, Populist Counter-subversion Panic” (2012), Chip Berlet, identified Cultural Marxism conspiracy as an ideological basis of the Tea Party movement, as published in their websites. That the Tea Parties are a right-wing populist movement whose claims of social subversion echo earlier white nationalist claims of subversion. That the economic lites use populist rhetoric to encourage counter-subversion panics; thus, a large, middle-class white constituency sides with the lites to defend their relative and precarious socio-economic position in society. The blame for failures (economic, political, social) is diverted from the faults of free-market capitalism to mythical conspiracies of collectivists, communists, labor bosses, and other cultural scapegoats. In that manner, the accusation of Cultural Marxism defends racist and sexist social hierarchies, under the guise of patriotism, economic libertarianism, Christian values, and nativism that oppose the big government policies of the Obama Administration.[69][70]

In the essay “Cultural Marxism and the Radical Right” (2014), the political scientist Jrme Jamin said that “next to the global dimension of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, there is its innovative and original dimension, which lets its authors avoid racist discourses and pretend to be defenders of democracy” in their respective countries.[71] In that ideological vein, “How Trump’s Paranoid White House Sees ‘Deep State’ Enemies on all Sides” (2017), reported that Richard Higgins was fired from the U.S. National Security Council, because of his memorandum about a conspiracy to destroy the presidency of Donald Trump; Higgins identified the conspirators as American public-intellectuals of Cultural Marxism, foreign Islamists, and globalist bankers, the news media, and politicians from the Republican and Democrat parties.[72][73][74]

In the speech The Origins of Political Correctness (2000), William S. Lind established the ideologic lineage of Cultural Marxism, from Weimar Germany to the U.S.; that:

If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the Hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I [to Kulturbolshewismus]. If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with [the basic tenets of] classical Marxism, the parallels are very obvious.[62]

Lind’s historical delineation of the denotations and connotations of the ideology of Cultural Marxism demonstrated that “The Alt-rights Favorite Meme is 100 Years Old” (2018); law professor Samuel Moyn said that anti-intellectual fear of Cultural Marxism is “an American contribution to the phantasmagoria of the alt-right”; while the conspiracy theory, itself, is “a crude slander, referring to [ Judeo-Bolshevism ], something that does not exist.”[75]

Read the original post:

Frankfurt School – Wikipedia


12345...1020...